Political Roundtable Part IX

[cammac]

And yet there's been a 17 pt swing in Trump's favor!
We'll see if that changes post convention.

Things that I think will happens is that people will compare especially independents and Republicans the 2 candidates on merit and who can lead the country in the right direction. Yes many may hold there noses and vote for Hillary but considering the alternative she is the best for America alternative.

You look at the star power behind Hillary with viable and high profile surrogates and a united party who has opened the door to a wide spectrum of voters. I am the 1st of the baby boomers and the 60's are a major part of my personal agenda. I'm against war as only the last alternative but there are times that people and nations need to take a stand. Who do you trust someone who will make a business deal? I remember going to College in Virginia and I was at a mall and a black man was having trouble with his car. I came over asked him if I could help he said son you shouldn't be doing this. I helped him was simple a bad battery connection. He thanked me and said to me "be careful son this is the South and you aren't from around here". I believe in social justice and equality and helping people in need that is the true America.

I think Hillary will be polling in the mid 40's and Trump will be in the high 30's so looking for a 7 to 9 point spread. When the debates happen that will widen.

Star power has worked in the past but I think it will have little effect this time around. If you have noticed, voters are more cyncial these days, thanks in part to all of the information that is available to them. Katy Perry is not swaying anyone into voting for HRC.

Katy Perry isn't the star power I was talking about. The political stars the Obama's, Biden, Bill, Bernie and all bringing different coalitions with them.

[nate33]

Things that I think will happens is that people will compare especially independents and Republicans the 2 candidates on merit and who can lead the country in the right direction. Yes many may hold there noses and vote for Hillary but considering the alternative she is the best for America alternative.

You look at the star power behind Hillary with viable and high profile surrogates and a united party who has opened the door to a wide spectrum of voters. I am the 1st of the baby boomers and the 60's are a major part of my personal agenda. I'm against war as only the last alternative but there are times that people and nations need to take a stand. Who do you trust someone who will make a business deal? I remember going to College in Virginia and I was at a mall and a black man was having trouble with his car. I came over asked him if I could help he said son you shouldn't be doing this. I helped him was simple a bad battery connection. He thanked me and said to me "be careful son this is the South and you aren't from around here". I believe in social justice and equality and helping people in need that is the true America.

I think Hillary will be polling in the mid 40's and Trump will be in the high 30's so looking for a 7 to 9 point spread. When the debates happen that will widen.

Star power has worked in the past but I think it will have little effect this time around. If you have noticed, voters are more cyncial these days, thanks in part to all of the information that is available to them. Katy Perry is not swaying anyone into voting for HRC.

Katy Perry isn't the star power I was talking about. The political stars the Obama's, Biden, Bill, Bernie and all bringing different coalitions with them.

Well, Bernie just left the DNC so I'm not sure how many people he will bring in. Bill is in poor health and his speeches tend to be more about him than Hillary. Nobody who is currently undecided knows or cares who Biden is.

Obama is the one big weapon for Hillary. The question is, can he motivate blacks to go out and vote for Hillary in the same numbers that they voted for him? Maybe the Democrats can whip up some more anti-police riots and really get 'em charged up. But that could backfire with the rest of the public.

[cammac]

Star power has worked in the past but I think it will have little effect this time around. If you have noticed, voters are more cyncial these days, thanks in part to all of the information that is available to them. Katy Perry is not swaying anyone into voting for HRC.

Katy Perry isn't the star power I was talking about. The political stars the Obama's, Biden, Bill, Bernie and all bringing different coalitions with them.

Well, Bernie just left the DNC so I'm not sure how many people he will bring in. Bill is in poor health and his speeches tend to be more about him than Hillary. Nobody who is currently undecided knows or cares who Biden is.

Obama is the one big weapon for Hillary. The question is, can he motivate blacks to go out and vote for Hillary in the same numbers that they voted for him? Maybe the Democrats can whip up some more anti-police riots and really get 'em charged up. But that could backfire with the rest of the public.

You are disgusting to even consider that. While you back demagoguery in Trump praising the most despicable leaders in the world. I was away and just read some of your posts Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia yes have Russian minorities but they were under the heals of Russia for years and Russia moved Russians into the countries infrastructure. The vast majority of people in those countries no matter their ethnic group prefer a democratic society but you likely disagree with that. In a period that Canada met it's Nato obligations and was basically Lithuania's air force they scrabbled on a daily basis to turn Russia fighter jets. (now Spain has taken that rotation) now they are providing troop is Estonia to met obligations. It like in China where in places like Tibet, Outer Mongolia, Xinjiang, Guangxi, Yunnan & parts of Sichuan the Han people have been moved into positions of power and subjugated those Provinces.

[fishercob]

He puts America first? Because he says so? Or are you basing this on his record?

Nothing in Trump's record of where he manufactures his goods or who he hires would indicate that he's in the slightest bit patriotic.

Where has Hillary demonstrated any semblance of patriotism? Do you really buy the pandering that's been happening the last few days? She scares me 10x more than Barry ever did.

Well, the point I was responding to wasn't about HIllary. It was about Trump and his supposed putting America first. One would think that if he actually felt compelled by patriotism more than self-interest, it would be reflected in his business practices.

But to your question about Hillary, everything that she stands for is about making the opportunities of America accessible to all people. That's pretty patriotic. You think she's a liar and all that, and that's fine. But you don't work for the Children's Defense Fund out of self interest. You don't fight for health insurance for millions of people out of self interest. She clearly cares very deeply about the plight of others, and that is inherently patriotic.

[fishercob]

The political analysis you've all been waiting for: The conventions have driven home that Trump doesn't have anywhere near the heavy hitters to stump for him that Hillary does, and no matter how effective he may be in campaigning, he simply can't be everywhere at once.

Hillary will have Biden with her in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania; Kaine giving speeches in Spanish all over Florida; Bill, Michelle and Barack wherever they are needed. They are needle-movers.

Who is going to get out the vote for Trump in all of these battleground states? He and his children can't do it all themselves, and the Republican establishment has shown they will not stump for him.

I would expect things to be reported to be very close over the next several weeks, but I think the 538-type models will start to show Hillary with a widening lead. Come election day (barring something unforeseen), I think she'll win by a pretty big margin of electoral votes.

Or, I'm totally wrong. Seems like a reasonable theory though, right?

Let's make a friendly wager. I say Trump wins in a landslide. Trump is not going to defeat Hillary. Lower voter turn out is going to defeat her.

Don't know you, not interested in a wager. Your prediction may be 100% correct. What's the electoral math you see that will yield a Trump landslide victory -- what blue states will he turn red?

[Ruzious]

Popper, with all due respect, this IRS witch hunt over the Tea Party is nothing a pile of crap. Not even one tea party organization was turned down for exempt status. This was all about the IRS group that handles making the exempt decisions being under-staffed, so one idea someone came up with was to use key word searches. They should have been careful to use the same type of word searches for Democrat orgs, but they blew it. But so f'n what. There was no political intent. They were simply trying to deal with being understaffed. The time money and man-power used to investigate this is far more shameful than anything the IRS did. Every Tea Party member who's made a big deal about this is a

Spoiler:

MORON

.

Right. That's why Lois Lerner pleaded the fifth. She could have simply repeated your post and avoided the investigation. You just read the excerpts from FBI interviews where senior IRS personnel stated under penalty of perjury that applications were pulled based on the ideology of the applicants. You just read that the FBI determined that senior IRS executives knew about the partisan nature of IRS behavior two years before the Lerner disclosure. If you're ok with that sort of govt. behavior then so be it. I would however avoid labeling people morons when they were right all along about the targeting of conservative groups.

I was being nice when I said morons, popper. I know what I know because I have 2 long-time good friends that work in that department of the IRS. Name one organization that the IRS damaged in any way in this supposed corruption. The fact that we've spent - and continue to spend - so much of our taxpayer dollars in this investigation is the real corruption. They made a mistake by not including Democrats in their word search. That should have been the end of the investigation. Again, what organization was damaged?

[popper]

Popper, with all due respect, this IRS witch hunt over the Tea Party is nothing a pile of crap. Not even one tea party organization was turned down for exempt status. This was all about the IRS group that handles making the exempt decisions being under-staffed, so one idea someone came up with was to use key word searches. They should have been careful to use the same type of word searches for Democrat orgs, but they blew it. But so f'n what. There was no political intent. They were simply trying to deal with being understaffed. The time money and man-power used to investigate this is far more shameful than anything the IRS did. Every Tea Party member who's made a big deal about this is a

Spoiler:

MORON

.

Right. That's why Lois Lerner pleaded the fifth. She could have simply repeated your post and avoided the investigation. You just read the excerpts from FBI interviews where senior IRS personnel stated under penalty of perjury that applications were pulled based on the ideology of the applicants. You just read that the FBI determined that senior IRS executives knew about the partisan nature of IRS behavior two years before the Lerner disclosure. If you're ok with that sort of govt. behavior then so be it. I would however avoid labeling people morons when they were right all along about the targeting of conservative groups.

I was being nice when I said morons, popper. I know what I know because I have 2 long-time good friends that work in that department of the IRS. Name one organization that the IRS damaged in any way in this supposed corruption. The fact that we've spent - and continue to spend - so much of our taxpayer dollars in this investigation is the real corruption. They made a mistake by not including Democrats in their word search. That should have been the end of the investigation. Again, what organization was damaged?

Every conservative organization who's application was stymied by an ideological litmus test prior to the 2012 election. There were literally hundreds of them that were unable to participate unlike their progressive counterparts who's applications were approved expeditiously.

[Zonkerbl]

I'm an economist, ask me anything!

[Ruzious]

Right. That's why Lois Lerner pleaded the fifth. She could have simply repeated your post and avoided the investigation. You just read the excerpts from FBI interviews where senior IRS personnel stated under penalty of perjury that applications were pulled based on the ideology of the applicants. You just read that the FBI determined that senior IRS executives knew about the partisan nature of IRS behavior two years before the Lerner disclosure. If you're ok with that sort of govt. behavior then so be it. I would however avoid labeling people morons when they were right all along about the targeting of conservative groups.

I was being nice when I said morons, popper. I know what I know because I have 2 long-time good friends that work in that department of the IRS. Name one organization that the IRS damaged in any way in this supposed corruption. The fact that we've spent - and continue to spend - so much of our taxpayer dollars in this investigation is the real corruption. They made a mistake by not including Democrats in their word search. That should have been the end of the investigation. Again, what organization was damaged?

Every conservative organization who's application was stymied by an ideological litmus test prior to the 2012 election. There were literally hundreds of them that were unable to participate unlike their progressive counterparts who's applications were approved expeditiously.

Wrong. The majority of the delays for those organizations were caused by understaffing of the IRS - mainly due to under-funding of the IRS by Congress. Again, not one of those organizations were turned down for exempt status.

[popper]

I'm a professional economist, ask me anything!

At what point do our $600 billion annual deficits piled upon $19 trillion of debt become unsustainable? And when that occurs, what will the fallout be and what actions should the govt. take to correct the imbalances?

[Ruzious]

I'm a professional economist, ask me anything!

At what point do our $600 billion annual deficits piled upon $19 trillion of debt become unsustainable? And when that occurs, what will the fallout be and what actions should the govt. take to correct the imbalances?

Start by getting rid of the preferential capital gains tax rates for the wealthy.

[popper]

I was being nice when I said morons, popper. I know what I know because I have 2 long-time good friends that work in that department of the IRS. Name one organization that the IRS damaged in any way in this supposed corruption. The fact that we've spent - and continue to spend - so much of our taxpayer dollars in this investigation is the real corruption. They made a mistake by not including Democrats in their word search. That should have been the end of the investigation. Again, what organization was damaged?

Every conservative organization who's application was stymied by an ideological litmus test prior to the 2012 election. There were literally hundreds of them that were unable to participate unlike their progressive counterparts who's applications were approved expeditiously.

Wrong. The majority of the delays for those organizations were caused by understaffing of the IRS - mainly due to under-funding of the IRS by Congress. Again, not one of those organizations were turned down for exempt status.

If the cause was under-staffing, why were conservative groups stymied and progressive groups expedited? Why on earth would Lerner plead the fifth if there was such an innocent explanation for the partisan treatment of applications. If as you say, all groups finally received exempt status, it occurred post election. Too late to participate. In other words, mission accomplished from the progressive point of view.

[montestewart]

I was being nice when I said morons, popper. I know what I know because I have 2 long-time good friends that work in that department of the IRS. Name one organization that the IRS damaged in any way in this supposed corruption. The fact that we've spent - and continue to spend - so much of our taxpayer dollars in this investigation is the real corruption. They made a mistake by not including Democrats in their word search. That should have been the end of the investigation. Again, what organization was damaged?

Every conservative organization who's application was stymied by an ideological litmus test prior to the 2012 election. There were literally hundreds of them that were unable to participate unlike their progressive counterparts who's applications were approved expeditiously.

Wrong. The majority of the delays for those organizations were caused by understaffing of the IRS - mainly due to under-funding of the IRS by Congress. Again, not one of those organizations were turned down for exempt status.

I haven't paid much attention to this issue and don't know whether real harm was done or not, but the understaffing at the IRS is common knowledge, creating a nightmare for anyone who has a question in tax season, a backlog in rulings, and a great atmosphere for tax cheats. I attended a series of seminars earlier this year in which three or four of the six presenters specifically referenced the understaffing along with related problems and benefits.

[Ruzious]

Every conservative organization who's application was stymied by an ideological litmus test prior to the 2012 election. There were literally hundreds of them that were unable to participate unlike their progressive counterparts who's applications were approved expeditiously.

Wrong. The majority of the delays for those organizations were caused by understaffing of the IRS - mainly due to under-funding of the IRS by Congress. Again, not one of those organizations were turned down for exempt status.

I haven't paid much attention to this issue and don't know whether real harm was done or not, but the understaffing at the IRS is common knowledge, creating a nightmare for anyone who has a question in tax season, a backlog in rulings, and a great atmosphere for tax cheats. I attended a series of seminars earlier this year in which three or four of the six presenters specifically referenced the understaffing along with related problems and benefits.

And we can guess where the Tea Party folks stood on funding the IRS.

[Ruzious]

Every conservative organization who's application was stymied by an ideological litmus test prior to the 2012 election. There were literally hundreds of them that were unable to participate unlike their progressive counterparts who's applications were approved expeditiously.

Wrong. The majority of the delays for those organizations were caused by understaffing of the IRS - mainly due to under-funding of the IRS by Congress. Again, not one of those organizations were turned down for exempt status.

If the cause was under-staffing, why were conservative groups stymied and progressive groups expedited? Why on earth would Lerner plead the fifth if there was such an innocent explanation for the partisan treatment of applications. If as you say, all groups finally received exempt status, it occurred post election. Too late to participate. In other words, mission accomplished from the progressive point of view.

I don't know Lerner's personal problems, and I don't care what they are. And nothing stopped those organization from participating. The amount of those organizations suddenly applying for exempt status made it impossible for that IRS group to do their jobs.

[nate33]

I'm a professional economist, ask me anything!

At what point do our $600 billion annual deficits piled upon $19 trillion of debt become unsustainable? And when that occurs, what will the fallout be and what actions should the govt. take to correct the imbalances?

Start by getting rid of the preferential capital gains tax rates for the wealthy.

I'd be okay with this, provided that business taxes were reduced to zero. The issue is double taxation. Business pay taxes on their profits, and then shareholders pay an additional tax on capital gains.

I think the elimination of business taxes coupled with treating capital gains as income would be ideal. Low business taxes would attract more physical business in our country and thus create jobs. Meanwhile, treating capital gains as income would shift the burden of taxes more toward the ultra rich and less toward the middle class. That said, there are probably reasons why this isn't quite as simple as it sounds. No matter the type of tax, there are methods of evading them and as tax rates go up, the incentive to evade them increases.

[Ruzious]

At what point do our $600 billion annual deficits piled upon $19 trillion of debt become unsustainable? And when that occurs, what will the fallout be and what actions should the govt. take to correct the imbalances?

Start by getting rid of the preferential capital gains tax rates for the wealthy.

I'd be okay with this, provided that business taxes were reduced to zero. The issue is double taxation. Business pay taxes on their profits, and then shareholders pay an additional tax on capital gains.

I think the elimination of business taxes coupled with treating capital gains as income would be ideal. Low business taxes would attract more physical business in our country and thus create jobs. Meanwhile, treating capital gains as income would shift the burden of taxes more toward the ultra rich and less toward the middle class. That said, there are probably reasons why this isn't quite as simple as it sounds. No matter the type of tax, there are methods of evading them and as tax rates go up, the incentive to evade them increases.

We disagree. If you think it through, almost ALL taxable income has been taxed more than once, so the double taxation complaint doesn't work.

[Zonkerbl]

I'm a professional economist, ask me anything!

At what point do our $600 billion annual deficits piled upon $19 trillion of debt become unsustainable? And when that occurs, what will the fallout be and what actions should the govt. take to correct the imbalances?

Our experience with other countries indicates that countries' financial systems tend to collapse once their total debt exceeds 200% of annual GDP (so for the US currently about $34 trillion). The United States is already at a level of debt (>100% of GDP) that would not be tolerated by the IMF in any of its partner countries. We're not in trouble yet but we are getting there.

[Zonkerbl]

At what point do our $600 billion annual deficits piled upon $19 trillion of debt become unsustainable? And when that occurs, what will the fallout be and what actions should the govt. take to correct the imbalances?

Start by getting rid of the preferential capital gains tax rates for the wealthy.

I'd be okay with this, provided that business taxes were reduced to zero. The issue is double taxation. Business pay taxes on their profits, and then shareholders pay an additional tax on capital gains.

I think the elimination of business taxes coupled with treating capital gains as income would be ideal. Low business taxes would attract more physical business in our country and thus create jobs. Meanwhile, treating capital gains as income would shift the burden of taxes more toward the ultra rich and less toward the middle class. That said, there are probably reasons why this isn't quite as simple as it sounds. No matter the type of tax, there are methods of evading them and as tax rates go up, the incentive to evade them increases.

This'll be the tenth time I've said this in this thread but I think the corporate income tax rate should be eliminated and replaced with a VAT.

[dckingsfan]

Start by getting rid of the preferential capital gains tax rates for the wealthy.

I'd be okay with this, provided that business taxes were reduced to zero. The issue is double taxation. Business pay taxes on their profits, and then shareholders pay an additional tax on capital gains.

I think the elimination of business taxes coupled with treating capital gains as income would be ideal. Low business taxes would attract more physical business in our country and thus create jobs. Meanwhile, treating capital gains as income would shift the burden of taxes more toward the ultra rich and less toward the middle class. That said, there are probably reasons why this isn't quite as simple as it sounds. No matter the type of tax, there are methods of evading them and as tax rates go up, the incentive to evade them increases.

This'll be the tenth time I've said this in this thread but I think the corporate income tax rate should be eliminated and replaced with a VAT.

A VAT would be good if it was applied to online transactions as well and a portion went to local entities. But, it is still a very regressive tax in some ways. I guess you could argue that those that purchased more would be taxed more?

I assume you could then eliminate the capital gains tax carve out at the same time?