Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/02/11 02:27:08
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I'd like to know how 5% of $648B is greater than 5% of the remaining $3.3T ? Here's the problem most of the people who spout off about the budget have no idea what they're talking about. Far too many people see a pie chart that leaves out half the budget and think thats the sum total of what we spend (or conveniently ignore the other half)
Probably because the term "budget" refers only to discretionary spending, this is because mandatory spending is not a part of the normal appropriations process.
No the term budget refers to the whole dang thing, that's why the OMB produced budget submission for the president includes the whole dang thing. Considering that the non discretionary spending continues to be a larger and larger percentage of the budget and honest application of Easy's philosophy earlier would lead one to conclude that you must deal with the non discretionary spending.
2016/02/11 02:27:35
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Guys... Temper your outlook in this NH primary aftermath. Keep in mind that this state is an ultra-Liberal state with an open primary.
The true bellweather imo is South Carolina (and the rest of the southeastern states).
The real story is how Sanders is clobbering Clinton. Sanders beat Clinton is just about every age group too.
So we shouldn't worry about NH results for the Republican primary, because NH is so liberal.
But in the Democratic primary, when the far left candidate beats the centrist in the very liberal state... we're supposed to treat that as a major and decisive moment?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplifiedless progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?
Flat tax does nothing to simplify the tax system. The current progressive tax system in the US is captured in the following table;
So just plug your income in to that and hey presto, you're done in 30 seconds. There's additional tables for married people and other categories, but they just move the bands, the structure remains the same.
That is not why or how the tax code is complex. The tax code goes for thousands of pages because it is very hard to determine what is and isn't income, and what kind of income it is. And then gets it more bloated once you start adding special incentives, and have to start defining what does and doesn't meet the criteria for those special exemptions. A flat tax will change none of that.
What a flat tax does is shift the burden, away from the higher income earners and to the lower income earners. And people may be fine with that. But want it for those reasons, not because of a misunderstanding of why the tax system is complex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Yeah, adding another 4-5 million Federal employees to staff another layer of bureaucracy is a hard sell.
4 to 5 million. 1.5% of the total US population. That's the number you think will be needed in backroom support for the system. Nice work. I can make up numbers too. Forty hundred gazillion. This is fun.
Anyhow, now that we've all had fun making up numbers based on nothing, you might be interested to learn that socialised medical systems actually have vastly less spent on administrative and other support costs. When you don’t need to spend on tv advertising for private insurers, on customer relations people to maintain relationships between hospitals and insurers, on processing staff to double handle payments, it’s amazing what happens.
Single payer isn’t perfect, not by a long way, and I think a hybrid system is actually the strongest model, but there’s something very wrong with just hearing government, assuming it must be more inefficient and making up some random number.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/11 02:50:38
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/11 03:00:42
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I'd like to know how 5% of $648B is greater than 5% of the remaining $3.3T ? Here's the problem most of the people who spout off about the budget have no idea what they're talking about. Far too many people see a pie chart that leaves out half the budget and think thats the sum total of what we spend (or conveniently ignore the other half)
Probably because the term "budget" refers only to discretionary spending, this is because mandatory spending is not a part of the normal appropriations process.
No the term budget refers to the whole dang thing, that's why the OMB produced budget submission for the president includes the whole dang thing. Considering that the non discretionary spending continues to be a larger and larger percentage of the budget and honest application of Easy's philosophy earlier would lead one to conclude that you must deal with the non discretionary spending.
You focus on discretionary spending, because that is the spending that you have control over. Because it's discretionary.
That's pretty much how I handle my own household budget. There is the stuff we HAVE to spend money on each month (mortgage, car insurance, utilities) and there is the stuff we CHOOSE to spend money on (dining out, Warhammer, clothes).
If we are trying to save my money and my wife suggests that I cut back my Warhammer spending by 5% then it wouldn't be very reasonable for me to counter "why don't we just spend 5% less EVERYWHERE, let's only pay 95% of our mortgage, 95% of our car insurance, 95% of my electric bill".
CptJake wrote: Yeah, adding another 4-5 million Federal employees to staff another layer of bureaucracy is a hard sell.
4 to 5 million. 1.5% of the total US population. That's the number you think will be needed in backroom support for the system. Nice work. I can make up numbers too. Forty hundred gazillion. This is fun.
Anyhow, now that we've all had fun making up numbers based on nothing, you might be interested to learn that socialised medical systems actually have vastly less spent on administrative and other support costs. When you don’t need to spend on tv advertising for private insurers, on customer relations people to maintain relationships between hospitals and insurers, on processing staff to double handle payments, it’s amazing what happens.
Single payer isn’t perfect, not by a long way, and I think a hybrid system is actually the strongest model, but there’s something very wrong with just hearing government, assuming it must be more inefficient and making up some random number.
16% of the population is covered by Medicare, and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services employs ~6,000 people.
Now, those 6,000 people also do other things besides administering Medicare of course. But just for the lulz let's look at that number.
Expand those 6,000 people who administer the single payer insurance called Medicare to cover 100% instead of 16% (6,000 x 6.25) = 37,000 employees.
So even if you assume that expanding Medicare to everyone would make it ten times more labor intensive, you would still only end up with 370,000 employees.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/11 03:07:25
2016/02/11 03:42:43
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: So even if you assume that expanding Medicare to everyone would make it ten times more labor intensive, you would still only end up with 370,000 employees.
Contrast that with the probably few million people who work in the DoD.... And I'm not just talking about the uniformed military folks here. Every military installation runs on civilian employees for a wide range of services.
2016/02/11 03:52:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: So even if you assume that expanding Medicare to everyone would make it ten times more labor intensive, you would still only end up with 370,000 employees.
Contrast that with the probably few million people who work in the DoD.... And I'm not just talking about the uniformed military folks here. Every military installation runs on civilian employees for a wide range of services.
Interesting fact: there are fewer people working for CMS than for Congress.
2016/02/11 04:31:21
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
How would you apply the Pareto Principle to spending cuts?
Incidentally, the US federal budget doesn't need cuts, it needs a squeeze. Strong limits on hiring so that natural attrition forces. Tight controls on new projects, unless those new projects can demonstrate overall system efficiencies. A plan to deliver efficiencies of about 3% year on year, with maybe half that used to fund new projects, and the other half returned in savings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Each side ought to put something on the table to get something out of reneging their past oppositions.
It's called "compromise".
Sort of. I mean, agree that tit for tat compromise should be the bread and butter of day to day politics. But on major issues, if that issue is supported by an overwhelming majority of the population, then one side saying ‘okay you can have it, but only if we get something’ is actually pretty non-democratic. In that situation the best course of action is for the party proposing a really popular piece of law to simply look to pass it, and let the other side suffer at the ballot. If a party wants to stand in the way of an overwhelmingly popular piece of law, then the most democratic result is for them to lose so many seats they can't oppose it any more (and of course, instead of that they'll simply let the law pass).
Of course, all of that is assuming single payer is actually that overwhelmingly popular. It won’t be. It’s kind of loved right now, because it exists as a vague notion of ‘better and cheaper’. But if some actual version was proposed, people would start to see all the bits here and there where they’d actually have reduced coverage, and they’d start to see the transitional chaos that’d be caused. They’d freak out, you can take ACA and times it by 10.
I can guarantee that across the population, in terms of treatment and the price paid, single payer, or better yet single payer with an option for private, would be a massive improvement. But I can also guarantee that it’d produce electoral freak out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jerram wrote: No the term budget refers to the whole dang thing, that's why the OMB produced budget submission for the president includes the whole dang thing. Considering that the non discretionary spending continues to be a larger and larger percentage of the budget and honest application of Easy's philosophy earlier would lead one to conclude that you must deal with the non discretionary spending.
Of course you produce a budget showing the whole budget. But you also split that out in to discretionary and non-discretionary items, to show which items can be increased or decreased with appropriations, and which items need whole changes of law to adjust.
The latter, of course, being a much more difficult process which generally requires reform and results over multiple years, tends not to be considered when dealing with single year budgets.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/02/11 04:47:04
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/02/11 05:56:36
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
jasper76 wrote: The worst part of the tax code: I should be getting a tax break for having no kids. I am not taxing the system near as much as the breeders littering the landscape with their spawn, yet they are the ones getting a per child tax break? Makes no sense at all.
Those tax breaks don't generally make up for the greater expenses that kids require, that's actually partly why they exist. To alleviate the expense of having children, which are quite obviously necessary for the continuation of society.
Anyway, I am a fan of a flat, and generally higher income tax, while removing/heavily reducing consumption taxes.
Some changes I would like to see:
Taxes on gasoline need to be phased out. Up to now, this has been how we got the money to maintain our roads. And it was a decent way of doing it when all vehicles ran on gas. However, electric and hybrid vehicles are becoming more common, and will eventually entirely replace current vehicles. This means we need to move to another way to get the money to maintain our roads. All registered vehicles should have a flat fee, probably based on vehicle weight, which will be used to repair and maintain roads.
All personal income should have a single flat rate, like say 10%. Exemptions will remain but may need some adjustments, but any non-exempt income gets taxed at the 10% rate. This 10% would be both state, local, and federal tax rolled into one. The ratio would be fixed across the entire country. Two people making identical wages on opposite sides of the country would have their taxes that went to the local, state, and federal government be exactly the same. Lets say 2% would go to local, 3% to the state, and 5% to the federal government.
No taxes on food or certain necessary household items at any and all points in the production chain. IE: No taxes on producers, processors, and distributers of food. At least on any profits directly related to these items. Possibly make this not apply to all food, like anything deemed too highly processed or a luxury item.(So for example, Wine would be taxed but breakfast at Denny's wouldn't)
Corporate taxes would also be fixed, say at a flat 15% of taxable profits. Give businesses tax breaks for providing health care and retirement plans to employees, like say $5,000 per employee. Possibly increase this tax break depending on quality of coverage. And of course remove Obamacare mandating coverage be given, You'll get better results by giving businesses massive incentives than making them mandatory.
Any money spent on healthcare or placed into a retirement account would have no taxes.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Ahtman wrote: If we are worried about government spending we could reduce military spending from 'absolute highest in the world' to 'absolute highest in the world but maybe a bit less'. That would decrease a lot of government jobs and employees, but there are a lot of weapons manufacturers that probably wouldn't go for it as they rely n that sweet government teet to make a living and they have a nice lobby to bribe, err coerce, no wait...convince (there we go) that we should be spending all that money on them. It isn't like the military is a private industry, after all, as it is just another layer of government employees pulling government salaries.
If we're talking about "cutting the fat", that target shouldn't solely be pointed at the military. There's opportunity to look at all facets of government spending.
Because a 5% cut in military spending would save more money than a 5% cut in everything else combined. Not to excuse the other portions of spending, but if the goal is to cut back on dollars spent than looking at the military would be the most efficient option. And let's face it, we really couldn't expect the government to seriously evaluate more than one portion at a time anyway.
I'd like to know how 5% of $648B is greater than 5% of the remaining $3.3T ? Here's the problem most of the people who spout off about the budget have no idea what they're talking about. Far too many people see a pie chart that leaves out half the budget and think thats the sum total of what we spend (or conveniently ignore the other half)
I was not as specific as I should have been. As others have mentioned, I meant the discretionary spending specifically. To my knowledge mandatory spending, while a larger portion of the overall budget, is much more complex to adjust since it involves actually passing/modifying legislation to do so. Regardless, military is 60-odd percent of discretionary spending, which is what I was referring to.
No the term budget refers to the whole dang thing, that's why the OMB produced budget submission for the president includes the whole dang thing.
No it doesn't, not whenever we're discussing budget negotiations. Anything that isn't discretionary is not on the table whenever Congress and the President bicker over the budget.
Considering that the non discretionary spending continues to be a larger and larger percentage of the budget and honest application of Easy's philosophy earlier would lead one to conclude that you must deal with the non discretionary spending.
Sure, but that isn't done through the appropriations process, which is what is being discussed whenever the word "budget" is used.
You mean like after 2008 election? Because, that's about the only time you could get such a coalition and even then, it was a gakky deal.
Many Democrats were from districts whereanything that smells of socialism is generally considered to be evil. Don't mistake Party affiliation for ideological consistency because, ultimately, representatives will reflect their constituencies; especially on major issues.
Each side ought to put something on the table to get something out of reneging their past oppositions.
It's called "compromise".
On minor issues that makes sense, but you can't do something on the level of instituting universal healthcare without touching on a huge number of ancillary issues*; meaning it would be really hard to put something on the table of equal value to the opposition. This is why I said there really isn't anything to be offered, the people that have built their careers on ideas that necessitate opposition to universal healthcare simply need to be swept out of office. Once that happens smaller concessions become feasible, if concessions need to be made at all.
*Taxation is the obvious one, but I can also pretty much guarantee there would be a large number of legal challenges regarding abortion and birth control.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/11 07:44:46
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/02/11 10:13:33
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
whembly wrote: Guys... Temper your outlook in this NH primary aftermath. Keep in mind that this state is an ultra-Liberal state with an open primary.
The true bellweather imo is South Carolina (and the rest of the southeastern states).
The real story is how Sanders is clobbering Clinton. Sanders beat Clinton is just about every age group too.
So we shouldn't worry about NH results for the Republican primary, because NH is so liberal.
But in the Democratic primary, when the far left candidate beats the centrist in the very liberal state... we're supposed to treat that as a major and decisive moment?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplifiedless progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?
Flat tax does nothing to simplify the tax system. The current progressive tax system in the US is captured in the following table;
So just plug your income in to that and hey presto, you're done in 30 seconds. There's additional tables for married people and other categories, but they just move the bands, the structure remains the same.
That is not why or how the tax code is complex. The tax code goes for thousands of pages because it is very hard to determine what is and isn't income, and what kind of income it is. And then gets it more bloated once you start adding special incentives, and have to start defining what does and doesn't meet the criteria for those special exemptions. A flat tax will change none of that.
What a flat tax does is shift the burden, away from the higher income earners and to the lower income earners. And people may be fine with that. But want it for those reasons, not because of a misunderstanding of why the tax system is complex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Yeah, adding another 4-5 million Federal employees to staff another layer of bureaucracy is a hard sell.
4 to 5 million. 1.5% of the total US population. That's the number you think will be needed in backroom support for the system. Nice work. I can make up numbers too. Forty hundred gazillion. This is fun.
Anyhow, now that we've all had fun making up numbers based on nothing, you might be interested to learn that socialised medical systems actually have vastly less spent on administrative and other support costs. When you don’t need to spend on tv advertising for private insurers, on customer relations people to maintain relationships between hospitals and insurers, on processing staff to double handle payments, it’s amazing what happens.
Single payer isn’t perfect, not by a long way, and I think a hybrid system is actually the strongest model, but there’s something very wrong with just hearing government, assuming it must be more inefficient and making up some random number.
It wasn't CptJake that came up with that number, Seb, it was me.
The UK health service employs around 1.5 million people, and since Sanders is talking about the British system, then the USA, with 4x the population of the UK, would need around 4-5 million employees if it copied our model, maybe more. Mine is a conservative estimate.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/02/11 11:46:52
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: The worst part of the tax code: I should be getting a tax break for having no kids. I am not taxing the system near as much as the breeders littering the landscape with their spawn, yet they are the ones getting a per child tax break? Makes no sense at all.
All personal income should have a single flat rate, like say 10%. Exemptions will remain but may need some adjustments, but any non-exempt income gets taxed at the 10% rate. This 10% would be both state, local, and federal tax rolled into one. The ratio would be fixed across the entire country. Two people making identical wages on opposite sides of the country would have their taxes that went to the local, state, and federal government be exactly the same. Lets say 2% would go to local, 3% to the state, and 5% to the federal government.
.
I agree with a couple of your wishlist items, but I am all in favor of a progressive tax so long as income is taxed. A 10% tax on someone making 20,000/year hurts alot more than a 10% tax on someone making 200,000. I believe that under a certain income threshold, citizens should have no income tax at all.
I also believe in state sovereignty and that states and localities should be free to impose whatever taxes their citizenry deem appropriate.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/11 11:48:14
2016/02/11 11:48:37
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Dogma, the Office of Management and Budget disagrees with you since when they submitted the President's Budget, it had it all and to use D-USA's household analogy. Are you really telling me any reputable financial manager won't include the non discretionary in any budget ?
To continue D-USAs analogy sometime's the correct answer is to move to a cheaper neighborhood or change your airconditioner/heat settings so your electric bill and gas bills are 5% less. Adjusting discretionary spending is short term thinking, you don't do things properly by only thinking short term. You only get long term solutions by long term thinking and in this case that requires modifications to "mandatory" spending and considering that congress controls both through legislation....And yes before it gets thrown back out I understand very well the authorization/appropriations process and the roles of the various committees in that budget.
2016/02/11 15:35:48
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
How would you apply the Pareto Principle to spending cuts?
Well, you look at the biggest chunk of Discretionary Spending, and that is where you have the most room to impact the budget overall by applying cuts. Now, I don't have the graph in front of me, but we can quickly find what big discretionary spending blocks get to 80% and that is where you have room to cut and make an impact. if you cut into the other stuff you are just moving deck chairs around.
Granted, it is WAY more complicated than that. I look forward to you tearing me apart on the subject.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/11 15:40:19
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2016/02/11 15:39:14
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
It wasn't CptJake that came up with that number, Seb, it was me.
The UK health service employs around 1.5 million people, and since Sanders is talking about the British system, then the USA, with 4x the population of the UK, would need around 4-5 million employees if it copied our model, maybe more. Mine is a conservative estimate.
That 1.5million includes all the doctors, nurses, technicians etc. in the NHS, though.
So it is not like the UK is employing 1.5million bureaucrats as people seemed to think.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/02/11 16:28:45
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
BLUFFTON, S.C. (AP) — The best hope of the Republican establishment just a week ago, Marco Rubio suddenly faces a path to his party's presidential nomination that could require a brokered national convention.
That's according to Rubio's campaign manager, Terry Sullivan, who told The Associated Press that this week's disappointing performance in New Hampshire will extend the Republican nomination fight for another three months, if not longer. It's a worst-case scenario for Rubio and many Republican officials alike who hoped to avoid a prolonged and painful nomination fight in 2016.
"We very easily could be looking at May — or the convention," Sullivan said aboard Rubio's charter jet from New Hampshire to South Carolina on Wednesday. "I would be surprised if it's not May or the convention."
The public embrace of a possible brokered convention marks a sharp shift in rhetoric from Rubio's top adviser that could be designed to raise alarm bells among Republican officials. Yet days after a disappointing fifth-place finish in New Hampshire and looking up at Donald Trump in next-up South Carolina, Rubio's presidential ambitions are truly facing growing odds.
While he downplayed his dilemma on his first day in South Carolina after the New Hampshire setback, the first-term Florida senator discussed his political challenges at length during an unusual 45-minute question-and-answer session with reporters aboard his campaign plane on Wednesday. He answered questions until there weren't any more, noting afterward that he hadn't held a session that long with reporters since his days as Florida's House speaker.
In remarks that were at times personal and others defiant, he also may have simply needed to talk it out to help process his predicament. It also seemed he needed to prove to the political world, himself and his family that he could face the biggest test of his young presidential bid.
"My kids were watching me last night," Rubio said of his nationally televised admission that a poor debate performance pushed voters away. "My kids knew that it didn't go the way I wanted it to go."
"I taught them more last night from that experience, I feel, than any words I'll share. They were learning from that experience," he said.
As he shifts his attention to South Carolina's Feb. 20 contest, the 44-year-old freshman senator wants voters to know he's learned an important lesson from his experience in New Hampshire. Instead of trying to avoid attacking his GOP rivals on the debate stage, Rubio said he's now prepared to fight back when necessary — particularly with his party's front-runner Donald Trump.
"I don't need to start these fights, but if someone starts one in the future we're going to have to point out the differences in our records in a sharper way," Rubio said. "I don't think we have the luxury any longer to basically say 'Look, I don't want to argue with Republicans.' "
New Hampshire destroyed any momentum Rubio had coming out of Iowa and for now, at least, locks the senator into a messy muddle in his party's establishment wing. Both Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush beat Rubio in New Hampshire in the contest to emerge as the mainstream alternative to Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
And as senior aides embraced the possibility of a brokered national convention, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said the Rubio operation is "built for a long campaign."
"I don't know of anyone who expected folks to fold up after New Hampshire and go on. There are a lot of candidates," Gowdy said as he was traveling with Rubio on Wednesday. "He's never indicated to me anything other than we're built for the long haul and it's going to be a long haul. But, you're running to be the leader of the free world — it's supposed to be a challenge."
There hasn't been a contested national convention since 1976, yet Republican National Committee officials have already had preliminary discussions about the possibility of no candidate securing a majority of delegates in the state-by-state primary contests.
It's by no means assured that Rubio's candidacy will survive that long.
Despite his popularity among many Republican leaders, he will ultimately need to start winning primary contests to remain competitive — especially as Trump and Cruz perform well.
Rubio's team has long expressed confidence about his chances in South Carolina. Yet Rubio downplayed expectations when talking to reporters. "We obviously need to do better than we did in New Hampshire," he said of the state where he finished in fifth place.
Sensing weakness, Democrats and Republicans alike have begun to question Rubio's long-term viability.
"The debate performance hurt. We'll see if he can turn it around," said 68-year-old Rubio supporter Rusty DePass after a Wednesday rally in Columbia. "I'm mad as hell at the people who run his campaign for not having him prepared."
"It was awful," DePass said.
Looks like Cruz is becoming that "Anti-Trump" choice as he's just about the only one consistently attacking Trump and is unscathed. Although, to be fair, Rubio got some good zingers recently.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/11 16:31:33
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Whembly, you and I come from very different circles, politically speaking. I'm curious to know what effect Trump's successes are having on that less-loud, more mainline Republican voter group.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/11 16:35:08
You mean when Rubio isn't in robot mode, repeating the same thing over and over again?
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/11 16:39:08
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
curran12 wrote: Whembly, you and I come from very different circles, politically speaking. I'm curious to know what effect Trump's successes are having on that less-loud, more mainline Republican voter group.
About 1/3rd will like Trump because they're the "burn it all down" crowd... they're *that* pissed. To me, it's a childish temper tantrum.
The key will be what it looks like if the GOP Primary is whittled down to 2 or 3 candidates. I don't think Trump breaks the low 30%... so, you'll start seeing the "anti-Trump" candidate coalescing soon.
I'm just hoping that the "anti-Trump" wins the nomination as Trump is the only candidate at the moment who loses to Clinton/Sanders in the general.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/11 16:51:31
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/11 16:52:57
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Jerram wrote: Dogma, the Office of Management and Budget disagrees with you since when they submitted the President's Budget, it had it all and to use D-USA's household analogy. Are you really telling me any reputable financial manager won't include the non discretionary in any budget ?
Sure he would, but when we're talking about the budget in the context of government spending, we're talking about the appropriations process. OMB can call it whatever it wants, but that isn't the way the term is used.
Jerram wrote: You only get long term solutions by long term thinking and in this case that requires modifications to "mandatory" spending and considering that congress controls both through legislation....And yes before it gets thrown back out I understand very well the authorization/appropriations process and the roles of the various committees in that budget.
See, you just did it. You used "budget" to refer to the appropriations process, and the appropriations process alone.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/02/11 16:59:26
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Taxes on gasoline need to be phased out. Up to now, this has been how we got the money to maintain our roads. And it was a decent way of doing it when all vehicles ran on gas. However, electric and hybrid vehicles are becoming more common, and will eventually entirely replace current vehicles. This means we need to move to another way to get the money to maintain our roads. All registered vehicles should have a flat fee, probably based on vehicle weight, which will be used to repair and maintain roads.
All personal income should have a single flat rate, like say 10%. Exemptions will remain but may need some adjustments, but any non-exempt income gets taxed at the 10% rate. This 10% would be both state, local, and federal tax rolled into one. The ratio would be fixed across the entire country. Two people making identical wages on opposite sides of the country would have their taxes that went to the local, state, and federal government be exactly the same. Lets say 2% would go to local, 3% to the state, and 5% to the federal government.
Personally, I think there should be an 80% tax on studded tires If you look at my location, I'm right near Tacoma... the Puget Sound in Washington State. I basically NEVER snows or really does anything to where studded tires would be useful. It's generally pretty damn mild. As such, there is absolutely ZERO reason why a fething Prius should be tearing up the roads in studded tires during the week. I could MAYBE see Friday afternoon heading east toward Rainier and the mountains... but the fact is, the roads get torn up pretty quickly when people unnecessarily use studded tires.
I somewhat "like" the idea of a flat tax, but what you're proposing here would seriously feth over larger cities like NYC, Boston and LA. Heck, I know that even in my area, the city/county struggles to deal with everything they are expected to, when they have property taxes coming in, 2% of the sales tax money coming in and other various local taxes.... I seriously doubt that getting rid of most of that, in favor of a "mere" 2% of total income would cut it, even for a small-time area like where I live.
2016/02/11 16:59:30
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I also believe in state sovereignty and that states and localities should be free to impose whatever taxes their citizenry deem appropriate.
Yeah, that's what would really kill Grey Templar's proposal. Forget all the problems with balancing taxation against spending across 50 States, ~3,000 counties, and ~20,000 incorporated communities (to say nothing of townships, FPDs, PPDs, and school districts); the real issue would end up being State's Rights.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/02/11 16:59:50
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: The worst part of the tax code: I should be getting a tax break for having no kids. I am not taxing the system near as much as the breeders littering the landscape with their spawn, yet they are the ones getting a per child tax break? Makes no sense at all.
All personal income should have a single flat rate, like say 10%. Exemptions will remain but may need some adjustments, but any non-exempt income gets taxed at the 10% rate. This 10% would be both state, local, and federal tax rolled into one. The ratio would be fixed across the entire country. Two people making identical wages on opposite sides of the country would have their taxes that went to the local, state, and federal government be exactly the same. Lets say 2% would go to local, 3% to the state, and 5% to the federal government.
.
I agree with a couple of your wishlist items, but I am all in favor of a progressive tax so long as income is taxed. A 10% tax on someone making 20,000/year hurts alot more than a 10% tax on someone making 200,000. I believe that under a certain income threshold, citizens should have no income tax at all.
I also believe in state sovereignty and that states and localities should be free to impose whatever taxes their citizenry deem appropriate.
Yes, 10% would hurt someone making 2k vs 200k more. However, I also said that exemptions would remain. So a single person making 20k a year would still be able to drop $6300 off their taxable income, in addition to any others they might qualify for.
I'd also not be opposed to raising that amount of exemption. Say maybe nobody gets taxed on the first 10k of income. So you'd only be taxed 10% on whatever you make in excess of $10,000.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
jasper76 wrote: Rubio is done in this cycle, and maybe forever in Presidential politics. Christie exposed him as an empty suit.
Too bad. Out of the frontrunners, I liked Rubio. So that pretty much leaves Bush, Cruz, and Trump. As far as I'm concerned, the nation doesn't need another Bush. Cruz is self-aggrandizing and quite happy to willfully alienate people he'll need in order to be an effective President. Trump is a populist and his "true self" is hidden and that scares me because we really don't know what we'll have should he actually become President.
2016/02/11 18:12:59
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: You mean when Rubio isn't in robot mode, repeating the same thing over and over again?
Indeedeo.
That was a trick question, he's always a talking point spouting robot.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/02/11 18:19:08
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Rubio is done in this cycle, and maybe forever in Presidential politics. Christie exposed him as an empty suit.
Too bad. Out of the frontrunners, I liked Rubio. So that pretty much leaves Bush, Cruz, and Trump. As far as I'm concerned, the nation doesn't need another Bush. Cruz is self-aggrandizing and quite happy to willfully alienate people he'll need in order to be an effective President. Trump is a populist and his "true self" is hidden and that scares me because we really don't know what we'll have should he actually become President.
Well, even if there is something in Rubio to like, he's just not the kind of dude we want in the White House. I mean, you all saw the debate. Nothing needs to really be said.
The real writing in the wall IMO is in the stories that came out about his panic attacks, and these stories are coming from his supporters. I have loads of empathy for people with anxiety problems, and I don't think people should be looked down upon for having panic attacks, but at the same time, I really don't think someone with those particular issues and challenges should be running the country.
2016/02/11 18:39:29
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
jasper76 wrote: Rubio is done in this cycle, and maybe forever in Presidential politics. Christie exposed him as an empty suit.
The statistics don't bear that out. There was no significant difference between the percentage of people voting for Rubio that made up their minds before the debate, and those who made up their minds after the fact.
This may have something to do with the fact that Christie is generally perceived as a RINO.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/02/11 18:46:57
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
If you look at my location, I'm right near Tacoma... the Puget Sound in Washington State. I basically NEVER snows or really does anything to where studded tires would be useful. It's generally pretty damn mild. As such, there is absolutely ZERO reason why a fething Prius should be tearing up the roads in studded tires during the week. I could MAYBE see Friday afternoon heading east toward Rainier and the mountains... but the fact is, the roads get torn up pretty quickly when people unnecessarily use studded tires.
