2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Sack, that's the kind of character assassination I want to avoid here. I understand your politics. That doesn't make most people who disagree with you mouth-breathers or assholes.

And if you'll point to where I said that all people who disagree with me are either one, I will cheerfully concede the point. I feel I was pretty narrow in my definitions. I did not characterize all or even most conservative positions as "asshole." I characterized Scott Walker's politics as such. I said explicitly that his politics are not conservative, except to the extent one considers assholery to be a defining trait of conservatism. I don't consider Scott Walker a conservative. I consider him an asshole.

Likewise, I didn't say Republicans are mouth-breathers or that conservatives are mouth-breathers. I said that people who judge the quality of a politician first or mainly on whether he "pisses off the Democrat Party" fall into that camp. Because supporting a candidate on that basis is explicitly not about values. That's about straight up being willing to be an asshole to other people if it pisses off people whose politics you don't like.

And, I'd argue, it's important to remember the context in which I utilitized those terms: we're talking about Jon's assertion that a Republican going negative on Scott Walker's record would be tantamount to losing the "conservative vote." What I objected to then, and object to now, is the assertion that Walker's politics so embody the soul of conservatism that there is no space for any Republican candidate to run to his right. Jon's assertion is that any Republican challenging Walker on those terms is committing political suicide. Mine is that Walker's most rabid support right now comes from people who don't know anything about him beyond "anybody who pisses off the Democrats must be doing something right." I'm not sure you could make the same claim about other Republican candidates who are attempting to carve out space as conservatives right now. Rand Paul? I disagree with him in several places, but he hasn't embraced "asshole politics" to prove his bona fides. Ditto Jeb Bush.

I think that either of those candidates, and possibly others, could make the case to primary voters that Scott Walker is not the Republican who best portrays conservative values, and I say that as somebody who - as I noted earlier - is probably left-of-center by contemporary definitions, and as somebody who is being charitable about what constitutes conservatism.

If I equivocated mouth-breathing assholery with Republicans and conservative ideals, I'd be calling Walker a standard bearer for the party, rather than drawing a distinction between Walker's politics and conservative politics as I understand them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

we're talking about Jon's assertion that a Republican going negative on Scott Walker's record would be tantamount to losing the "conservative vote." What I objected to then, and object to now, is the assertion that Walker's politics so embody the soul of conservatism that there is no space for any Republican candidate to run to his right. Jon's assertion is that any Republican challenging Walker on those terms is committing political suicide. Mine is that Walker's most rabid support right now comes from people who don't know anything about him beyond "anybody who pisses off the Democrats must be doing something right."

Well, let's keep my comments in that regard in some perspective as well.

Never mind who the candidate is, going all negative attack dog on someone that has only 4% negative reaction within the party core sounds like a pretty bad idea, especially when few candidates have a strong core of their own.

I mean, if there was something (or if something emerges) to provide some traction to get a running start on such a move, maybe it makes more sense. But to invest time & energy into trying to villianize a guy who really has none of that taint yet? That just seems ... well it just seems like a bad play. That's a move for a spoiler with a grudge, not a move for someone who actually wants to win anything themselves.

Also, I'd say the average voter DOES know at least one thing more about Walker than "he pisses off Dems" (although Lord knows that's worth quite a bit for a lot of us): we know he took the fight to unions, especially public-sector unions. These days, as hard as genuine conservatives are to come by, that's pretty much the stuff of which icons are made.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, let's keep my comments in that regard in some perspective as well.

Never mind who the candidate is, going all negative attack dog on someone that has only 4% negative reaction within the party core sounds like a pretty bad idea, especially when few candidates have a strong core of their own.

I mean, if there was something (or if something emerges) to provide some traction to get a running start on such a move, maybe it makes more sense. But to invest time & energy into trying to villianize a guy who really has none of that taint yet? That just seems ... well it just seems like a bad play. That's a move for a spoiler with a grudge, not a move for someone who actually wants to win anything themselves.

Also, I'd say the average voter DOES know at least one thing more about Walker than "he pisses off Dems" (although Lord knows that's worth quite a bit for a lot of us): we know he took the fight to unions, especially public-sector unions. These days, as hard as genuine conservatives are to come by, that's pretty much the stuff of which icons are made.

Jon, do you know what constituted "taking the fight to the unions"?

Walker: "Hey we need a bunch of concessions from the teachers to pay for these tax breaks I gave out, let's bust the public unions; oh but leave the fire and police unions alone because they donated to my campaign."

Teachers: "Hey, the economy sucks and we all have to sacrifice. That's cool, we're willing to do that. We're willing to take the pay cut, the change in pension contributions, etc. But we think your proposal to remove collective bargaining rights for everything except COLA goes too far."

Walker: "Sorry, you giving up everything else isn't enough. We need to break the unions because of reasons."

That's it. That's what "taking the fight to the unions" consisted of. Break the ability of "liberal" public unions to bargain for anything, ever. It's coincidence that the firefighters' and police unions, which backed Walker in his election campaigns were exempted.

It's even MORE coincidental that the state troopers' union, one of those that supported Walker, is getting around a 17% pay increase this year. The public unions whose collective bargaining rights were stripped? ~1% in 2013 and 2014, nothing budgeted for 2015 and 2016.

Remember, the state was allegedly in dire fiscal straits. That's what made Act 10 supposedly necessary. Where did the money come from for a 17% pay raise for a group that happened to be political supporters?

This is the problem, Jon. When you pick candidates - I really don't care which party - solely or primarily based on whether or not they "piss off" people whose politics you don't like, you open the door for cronyism. Maybe it's cronyism you like, where if it were the other party handing out those favors you would be appalled, but it's still cronyism.

I'll agree with you on one thing, though. Should a Republican get elected, I would LOVE to see Walker serve in the Cabinet. I mean that honestly.

We'd finally be rid of him in Wisconsin.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I feel I was pretty narrow in my definitions... I don't consider Scott Walker a conservative. I consider him an asshole.
...
Likewise, I didn't say Republicans are mouth-breathers or that conservatives are mouth-breathers. I said that people who judge the quality of a politician first or mainly on whether he "pisses off the Democrat Party" fall into that camp. Because supporting a candidate on that basis is explicitly not about values. That's about straight up being willing to be an asshole to other people if it pisses off people whose politics you don't like.

More it's a general lack of respect for the "other" side. I'd like these items to be an island where we all respect that people may feel passionately about some issues - issues we feel just as passionately about in a different way.

When you put forth the straw man that there are stupid people out there who choose their candidates based on who pisses off their own version of a straw man, it's not showing respect.

To many in the Mid-West, someone who goes after the teacher unions is a hero. You may feel that's awful. Many in my family feel that's awful. But to others, unions, rightly or not, are blamed for severe job loss, home values plummeting, unemployment, crime...

Many look at Illinois, which has been generous with public-sector unions, and see an impending bankruptcy that the federal government may not rescue.

Walker is a hero to them. The image of him surviving a recall after those protests in Madison is a strong one. That doesn't make them mouth-breathers or bad people or people who make decisions based on how much they upset others.

Walker's popularity right now may be partially based on his image as a strong foil to bogeymen, real or imaginary. But he's done enough for a lot of intelligent Republicans to want to hear him out.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by revrew

I've rarely found a better "mythbuster" article than this one, written by an Iowa talk radio firebrand: [/url]

Interesting article. Maybe overplaying a small sample size. I'd like to hear more about how candidates get voters into caucuses. I'd also like to read a solid report about corn subsidies and what would happen if someone like Paul challenged them.

Originally Posted by revrew

But the real stud in waiting is Jindal. I've interviewed him, seen him on stage multiple times and was in the room watching him handle a hostile reporter's interview. He is a masterful and brilliant communicator. I'm not talking about his policies or track record here now, just his communication skills. I've watched him walk into a room with Cruz's light show and Huckabee's down-home charm and smoke them both, winning the audience. Every time he gets a chance to speak, Jindal wins supporters. The only question is, can he rise from his relative obscurity fast enough to be a real contender?

Ever since he became Louisiana Governor at such a young age, and given his background in medicine, I've wanted to like Jindal. But his emphasis on religion rules him out for me. I'm always going to hope that somewhere out there, there's a guy like Huntsman or Chaffee who also just happens to be ridiculously charismatic and a strong leader as well as an aisle-crosser.

I suspect the Republicans feel the Democrats are badly wounded, and likely to come out unenthusiastically behind a flawed, somewhat-entitled Hillary Clinton - like the Republicans did with Bob Dole in the '90s. So that may encourage them to embrace the evangelical side of the party and shoot for the moon. I hope that's not the case, but if so, Jindal might not be the end of the world.

[Dutch]

IRT Walker, I've heard a bit about him generating a surplus in the state and producing a lot of new jobs. Have this things had a positive impact in WI?

[Clark]

Originally Posted by Dutch

IRT Walker, I've heard a bit about him generating a surplus in the state and producing a lot of new jobs. Have this things had a positive impact in WI?

Wisconsin is last in Midwest job creation. Walkers first term promise was to create 250,000 private sector jobs. He ended up creating 127,549 jobs.

In order not to increase taxes Walker borrowed, $500 million in 2011, $2.05 billion in 2013 and wants to borrow an additional $1.3 billion over the next two years.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Clark

Wisconsin is last in Midwest job creation. Walkers first term promise was to create 250,000 private sector jobs. He ended up creating 127,549 jobs.

In order not to increase taxes Walker borrowed, $500 million in 2011, $2.05 billion in 2013 and wants to borrow an additional $1.3 billion over the next two years.

Well, those are the positives I've heard. Stupid on my part for asking this one, but how does one borrow money and not increase taxes?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Jon, do you know what constituted "taking the fight to the unions"? ...
That's it. That's what "taking the fight to the unions" consisted of. Break the ability of "liberal" public unions to bargain for anything, ever.

And you wonder why he's a hero? I don't want them crushed, I want them extinct. And that he targeted one that I consider the most deserving of all ... Walker was lucky I didn't show up on his doorstep to either volunteer for the campaign or to offer to have his children.

Seriously, what he managed there was one of the most beautiful political sights I've ever seen in nearly 50 years.

Maybe it's cronyism you like, where if it were the other party handing out those favors you would be appalled, but it's still cronyism.

You say that as though it doesn't already happen. Or has ever not happened. Once in a while it's just nice to see the shoe be on the other foot.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, those are the positives I've heard. Stupid on my part for asking this one, but how does one borrow money and not increase taxes?

Simple. You cut spending by the amount of the debt payment and plan to not be in office when most of the debt comes due. You get the benefit of a $4 billion windfall now and your political opponents have to choke down $200 million payments every year over the next quarter century. Extra bonus points if you can convince the banks to donate part of the interest off the loans to your Presidential campaign.

[Dutch]

So it will just be added to the national debt then.

[Kodos]

So business as usual then.

[Dutch]

Is our national debt an actual long term problem? What difference does it make if its 10 trillion or 30 trillion?

[path12]

I have very little business being in this thread since my personal wish is for a Scandinavian style social democracy and I mourn the fact that there really isn't a true liberal party in this country.

This isn't about policy though. I have one question for my conservative/Republican friends on the board: With so many candidates and such a conservative base that participates in the primaries/caucuses, how do you see a candidate getting the nod who doesn't have to tack so far right for the nomination that they can't pivot back to the center for the general election?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by path12

I have very little business being in this thread since my personal wish is for a Scandinavian style social democracy and I mourn the fact that there really isn't a true liberal party in this country.

This isn't about policy though. I have one question for my conservative/Republican friends on the board: With so many candidates and such a conservative base that participates in the primaries/caucuses, how do you see a candidate getting the nod who doesn't have to tack so far right for the nomination that they can't pivot back to the center for the general election?

Honestly? I don't see the WH coming back on anything short of a miracle right now.

And if they do turn back to the middle for the general (and actually mean it) then {shrug} not really a big concern for me if they win or not. Not the least bit interested in a RINO in the oval office, especially not one that would have just shown themselves to have all the ethics of ... well, of a politician.

Barring a genuine miracle (or several of them), I believe the nation is largely lost & doomed to continue to spiral down the proverbial drain. Already dead most likely, the body is just still twitching.

[Kodos]

This reminds me. We should get together for a Left 4 Dead session at some point.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Is our national debt an actual long term problem? What difference does it make if its 10 trillion or 30 trillion?

It's not a crisis until investors decide the US is unable to pay its debt.

However we are currently paying 229 billion dollars in interest payments which anyone could agree that money could be spent on better purposes.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by path12

How do you see a candidate getting the nod who doesn't have to tack so far right for the nomination that they can't pivot back to the center for the general election?

There are many within the conservative base who would argue this isn't an effective campaign strategy. It didn't work for Dole, McCain, or Romney. In fact, candidates playing right to the base, then running to the middle, smacks the conservative wing of the party as hypocrisy and duplicity. Hence, Romney and McCain, while succeeding somewhat in grabbing middle voters, saw their GOP base stay home on election night in record numbers.

This debate is representative of one of the major divides in the party, with the establishment trying to play the game you mention above, and the conservative wing saying, "Screw that! Give us a real conservative and watch how we show up on election night to give the GOP the victory!"

And contrary to the misinformed narrative of East Coast media outlets, the GOP primary isn't about who can "out-conservative" the next guy, or who can tack so "far to the right," although a bunch of candidates do in fact try to do that. What it's REALLY about, at least in Iowa, is who says they believe what we believe ... and then is actually trustworthy/honest/principled enough to actually BELIEVE it? To act on it?

We'll actually accept and support a more centrist candidate in the primaries, IF we can actually trust them on the issues we agree upon. The Mitt McDoles of the world may be more centrist, but by playing the very game you suggest, they shoot themselves in the foot with their own base.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by revrew

There are many within the conservative base who would argue this isn't an effective campaign strategy. It didn't work for Dole, McCain, or Romney. In fact, candidates playing right to the base, then running to the middle, smacks the conservative wing of the party as hypocrisy and duplicity. Hence, Romney and McCain, while succeeding somewhat in grabbing middle voters, saw their GOP base stay home on election night in record numbers.

This debate is representative of one of the major divides in the party, with the establishment trying to play the game you mention above, and the conservative wing saying, "Screw that! Give us a real conservative and watch how we show up on election night to give the GOP the victory!"

And contrary to the misinformed narrative of East Coast media outlets, the GOP primary isn't about who can "out-conservative" the next guy, or who can tack so "far to the right," although a bunch of candidates do in fact try to do that. What it's REALLY about, at least in Iowa, is who says they believe what we believe ... and then is actually trustworthy/honest/principled enough to actually BELIEVE it? To act on it?

We'll actually accept and support a more centrist candidate in the primaries, IF we can actually trust them on the issues we agree upon. The Mitt McDoles of the world may be more centrist, but by playing the very game you suggest, they shoot themselves in the foot with their own base.

This notion fascinates me so much. Of the three candidates you mentioned, Mitt McDole, they seemed to be center first, then pander right, then return to center.

Your trust thing is interesting because the way the field is shaping up it seems it will be a far right first, then some sort of movement towards mass appeal. I wonder how that will come across as far as trust. My guess is as long as they stay socially conservative they can venture into more fiscally moderate waters...Bush

[rowech]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Jon, do you know what constituted "taking the fight to the unions"?

Walker: "Hey we need a bunch of concessions from the teachers to pay for these tax breaks I gave out, let's bust the public unions; oh but leave the fire and police unions alone because they donated to my campaign."

Teachers: "Hey, the economy sucks and we all have to sacrifice. That's cool, we're willing to do that. We're willing to take the pay cut, the change in pension contributions, etc. But we think your proposal to remove collective bargaining rights for everything except COLA goes too far."

Walker: "Sorry, you giving up everything else isn't enough. We need to break the unions because of reasons."

That's it. That's what "taking the fight to the unions" consisted of. Break the ability of "liberal" public unions to bargain for anything, ever. It's coincidence that the firefighters' and police unions, which backed Walker in his election campaigns were exempted.

It's even MORE coincidental that the state troopers' union, one of those that supported Walker, is getting around a 17% pay increase this year. The public unions whose collective bargaining rights were stripped? ~1% in 2013 and 2014, nothing budgeted for 2015 and 2016.

Remember, the state was allegedly in dire fiscal straits. That's what made Act 10 supposedly necessary. Where did the money come from for a 17% pay raise for a group that happened to be political supporters?

This is the problem, Jon. When you pick candidates - I really don't care which party - solely or primarily based on whether or not they "piss off" people whose politics you don't like, you open the door for cronyism. Maybe it's cronyism you like, where if it were the other party handing out those favors you would be appalled, but it's still cronyism.

I'll agree with you on one thing, though. Should a Republican get elected, I would LOVE to see Walker serve in the Cabinet. I mean that honestly.

We'd finally be rid of him in Wisconsin.

Same thing was tried in Ohio and rejected because police and fire was not separated from teachers. It will be interesting when Kasich and Walker debate the topic how they spin their own work as well as the work of the other person.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It's not a crisis until investors decide the US is unable to pay its debt.

However we are currently paying 229 billion dollars in interest payments which anyone could agree that money could be spent on better purposes.

We just get a loan to pay that? I am really starting to wonder if it matters enough to care. Does $10T or $30T or any number get us to a breaking point?

If not, I can see why things like religion or gay marriage (for or against) are key voting considerations for so many people.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We just get a loan to pay that? I am really starting to wonder if it matters enough to care. Does $10T or $30T or any number get us to a breaking point?

If not, I can see why things like religion or gay marriage (for or against) are key voting considerations for so many people.

It isn't a finite number. It is more of a ratio to what the amount of debt is in relation to GDP. The IMF considers above 90% as dangerous. The US currently is at 72.5% according to the IMF.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We just get a loan to pay that? I am really starting to wonder if it matters enough to care. Does $10T or $30T or any number get us to a breaking point?

If not, I can see why things like religion or gay marriage (for or against) are key voting considerations for so many people.

I'm no expert, but why don't people just rack up tons of debt of credit cards, then apply for more credit cards to pay the interest on the ones that are maxed, then keep the cycle going indefinitely? I would assume there's a point where they say, "Uh, I don't think you can pay this back, no more cards for you."

[Solecismic]

There's always the argument that we've spent all our money, we've spent all our children's money, and we're starting to work on our grandchildren.

Then we look at Greece and we realize that their grandchildren are unemployed, and they have absolutely no way to support themselves in their old age.

So they appeal to people in other countries, and they hope someone is willing to support them in the lifestyle they budgeted. And when the bigger countries say they're tired of it, they're left with Alexis Tsipras. It may still work, but it's a rough ride right now.

Money is, of course, just paper. The question is how much you can purchase with paper.

Sweden and Norway are wonderful places. But they're very small, they don't need much of a military, and they haven't had to face many of the challenges we face.

Greece was once a paradise, too, and then corrupt politicians realized that they could borrow nearly limitless amounts of cash to buy votes, and pass that bill on to future generations.

And once you start borrowing recklessly, it becomes addictive. No one starts out wanting to take his grandchildren's future away.

[rowech]

I've said this before at various times/places...the United States is too big to fail. If Greece goes down, the global economies are not devestated. If the United States fails, we are taking a lot of other countries with us. They won't allow it to happen.

Not saying you can just go about things as reckless as possible but comparing the United States economy failing and how it impacts the world to Greece failing isn't a fair comparison at all. Really, there is no fair comparison to what it would be like but I believe it would be bad for a couple of years but ultimately, unless the world decides they want to go down with the United States consumerism then it won't be as bad as pepole believe it will be.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We just get a loan to pay that? I am really starting to wonder if it matters enough to care. Does $10T or $30T or any number get us to a breaking point?

Simply put, the US sells bonds to finance its debt. As long as the interest rate it has to offer to entice buyers to purchase those bonds remains ridiculously low, it can carry a large debt. When interest rates rise back up to more historical averages, it becomes a much bigger portion of the Federal budget. So, despite what others might tell you, size does matter.

[JPhillips]

The U.S. can literally never default because we print our own currency. That doesn't mean high inflation would be painless, but we have the capability to print enough money to pay off debts if we had to. Greece, as a part of the EU, can't do that. I think you can make an argument that if they would have been able to go the Argentina route that they would be in better shape now. Continuing to cut and tax and shrink the economy isn't helping.

[Solecismic]

Since we seem to be going down that road (doubling the national debt in the last decade), we might get to find this out for ourselves in not-too-distant future.

For now, we're getting away with it. Let's not forget that China and India combined have three billion people, and we have 320 million. At some point, one or both may emerge as the world's dominant economies and will no longer see propping us up as mutually beneficial. It will hurt them for a couple of years. It will have a bigger effect on us.

This isn't going to happen tomorrow. We are not faced with Greece's fate based on what we do next November. This is quite a distance down the road.

For now, we see the effects when we see our infrastructure crumbling. We have a power grid that's dangerously unprotected - and it's estimated that if the power grid goes down for a full year, 90% of us will die.

Wisconsin, like most states, has a state mandate to provide education for gifted and talented students. Walker made that an unfunded mandate. Already, states are starting to make uncomfortable decisions, and they're making them in ways that won't cause visible protest (who protests a bridge crumbling, or a kid who's so bored in school that he loses his love for learning).

I'm not claiming doom and gloom is on the way (though the power grid thing makes me nervous). It's just our quality of life is declining in subtle ways that can't easily be recovered.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Simply put, the US sells bonds to finance its debt. As long as the interest rate it has to offer to entice buyers to purchase those bonds remains ridiculously low, it can carry a large debt. When interest rates rise back up to more historical averages, it becomes a much bigger portion of the Federal budget. So, despite what others might tell you, size does matter.

But that is for new debt, not existing debt. The interest rate on bonds is what it is set at when they are bought. (Note: there are a limited amount of Floating Rate Notes issued, but they are a very small amount, with a 2 year term)

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Dutch

IRT Walker, I've heard a bit about him generating a surplus in the state and producing a lot of new jobs. Have this things had a positive impact in WI?

He's claimed that, but in reality he's run a deficit every year he's been in office and is facing another $2 billion deficit over the next biennium. On new jobs Wisconsin has been behind neighboring states and in his first term saw about half the job growth he said his policies would create. His main jobs program, aside from putting Open for Business on state signs, the WEDC has been a complete failure.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Since we seem to be going down that road (doubling the national debt in the last decade), we might get to find this out for ourselves in not-too-distant future.

For now, we're getting away with it. Let's not forget that China and India combined have three billion people, and we have 320 million. At some point, one or both may emerge as the world's dominant economies and will no longer see propping us up as mutually beneficial. It will hurt them for a couple of years. It will have a bigger effect on us.

This isn't going to happen tomorrow. We are not faced with Greece's fate based on what we do next November. This is quite a distance down the road.

For now, we see the effects when we see our infrastructure crumbling. We have a power grid that's dangerously unprotected - and it's estimated that if the power grid goes down for a full year, 90% of us will die.

Wisconsin, like most states, has a state mandate to provide education for gifted and talented students. Walker made that an unfunded mandate. Already, states are starting to make uncomfortable decisions, and they're making them in ways that won't cause visible protest (who protests a bridge crumbling, or a kid who's so bored in school that he loses his love for learning).

I'm not claiming doom and gloom is on the way (though the power grid thing makes me nervous). It's just our quality of life is declining in subtle ways that can't easily be recovered.

All of those are political decisions that can be changed with different political decisions. Just going back to the Clinton tax rates would largely take care of the deficit and obviously not threaten the economy.

[ISiddiqui]

Looks like Christie in jumping in on Tuesday:

NJ Gov. Chris Christie To Announce 2016 Presidential Run Next Week « CBS New York

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

All of those are political decisions that can be changed with different political decisions. Just going back to the Clinton tax rates would largely take care of the deficit and obviously not threaten the economy.

Raising taxes has risks. I wouldn't say obviously there. Discussion of the Laffer Curve is certainly controversial with the left, but there are valid arguments to be considered.

I think the biggest long-term threat to our standard of living is the real unemployment rate (not the sanitized version produced by our politicians). We don't necessarily solve our problems with higher taxes, we solve them by putting more people in a position where they can pay taxes.

[JPhillips]

Except we spent nearly a decade under those tax rates and experienced a booming economy. I'm not arguing causation, but we obviously can get along with taxes at that level, we've done it.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by mckerney

He's claimed that, but in reality he's run a deficit every year he's been in office and is facing another $2 billion deficit over the next biennium. On new jobs Wisconsin has been behind neighboring states and in his first term saw about half the job growth he said his policies would create. His main jobs program, aside from putting Open for Business on state signs, the WEDC has been a complete failure.

I only read it on Wikipedia, I have no real knowledge of this dude. Sounds to me like he has done absolutely nothing right. At least from my second source of info...FOFC.

[Dutch]

So what would be the larger concern...the national debt or global warming. Provided we had to spend equal amounts on both to reverse course?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Except we spent nearly a decade under those tax rates and experienced a booming economy. I'm not arguing causation, but we obviously can get along with taxes at that level, we've done it.

Using the dot-com boom era as a point of economic comparison is not a good idea. That was a point of absurdity that we won't see again for a long, long time. Its rise and fall had absolutely nothing to do with anybody's economic or taxation policies.

[JPhillips]

But it, and the post-war boom, at least tell us that current taxes can be raised without an economic meltdown.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Looks like Christie in jumping in on Tuesday:

Well there's some horrifying imagery for the day

[Solecismic]

The top federal tax rate right now is 43.4%. In the '90s, it peaked at 39.6%. So I'm not sure this is an easy assessment. The lowest quintile is paying less than 2% now, which is one-fourth of what it was a decade ago. Are you arguing that we should focus tax increases on the lower half? Seems fairer in some ways, but I think even a die-hard Republican would blanche a little at that approach.

[kcchief19]

My question is when do candidates start dropping out. The money simply isn't there to support this many candidates. There is a Mendoza line here somewhere ... I think by the time January rolls around we'll be down to 10 candidates or fewer.

To get the nomination, you almost have to win either Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina. Right now, the leaders in recent polls in those states are Walker, Bush and Graham. Graham's only shot really seems to be to stay relevant until the South Carolina primary and hope for home cooking to keep him alive. Bush and Walker seem to the best positioned to be the top two coming out of South Carolina.

I'm just having a hard time seeing anyone else playing a role other than spoiler.

Given the role of Americans for Prosperity and the Koch family in this part of the country, I'm interested to see at what point they jump in to the race. The Kochs have already stated they plan to spend $1 billion on the 2016 election cycle. So far they say they won't pick a horse in the primary. But Walker has been their guy. If it looks like someone less aligned with AFP goals such as Bush starts pulling away, will they step in?

[Solecismic]

Around this time four years ago, there was a lot of polling in Iowa. The only one during the summer with more than 1,000 likely voters was the Magellan poll in early July.

Bachmann 29%, Romney 16%, Cain 8%, Gingrich 5%, Paul 5%, Santorum 3%. Rick Perry entered the race in August and immediately took the lead. And then we learned more about Rick Perry and he placed fifth in the actual Iowa caucus. Bachmann finished sixth. Cain was out of the race by then and Santorum won the caucus.

Right now, we really know nothing - even about Iowa.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The top federal tax rate right now is 43.4%. In the '90s, it peaked at 39.6%. So I'm not sure this is an easy assessment. The lowest quintile is paying less than 2% now, which is one-fourth of what it was a decade ago. Are you arguing that we should focus tax increases on the lower half? Seems fairer in some ways, but I think even a die-hard Republican would blanche a little at that approach.

I don't think that question was for me but, uh ... Flatten it.

Lots of die-hard conservatives don't blanche at that approach at all.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Around this time four years ago, there was a lot of polling in Iowa. The only one during the summer with more than 1,000 likely voters was the Magellan poll in early July.

Bachmann 29%, Romney 16%, Cain 8%, Gingrich 5%, Paul 5%, Santorum 3%. Rick Perry entered the race in August and immediately took the lead. And then we learned more about Rick Perry and he placed fifth in the actual Iowa caucus. Bachmann finished sixth. Cain was out of the race by then and Santorum won the caucus.

Right now, we really know nothing - even about Iowa.

QFT

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The top federal tax rate right now is 43.4%. In the '90s, it peaked at 39.6%. So I'm not sure this is an easy assessment. The lowest quintile is paying less than 2% now, which is one-fourth of what it was a decade ago. Are you arguing that we should focus tax increases on the lower half? Seems fairer in some ways, but I think even a die-hard Republican would blanche a little at that approach.

You're mixing rates in a confusing way there. The top marginal tax rate is 39.6%, but some self-employed taxpayers may have an additional Medicare surcharge and there could be an additional investment surcharge. But the number of people subject to the 43.4% marginal rate is extremely limited -- a fraction of 1 percent.

The lowest marginal rate is 10%, but the 2% rate you quote is an effective tax rate. No one facing a 43.4% marginal rate pays that much.

In fact, it's entirely possible that you could be in the 43.4% marginal tax bracket and pay less than 2% effective tax. This is where the Buffet proposal comes in -- that his effective tax rate is lower than the effective tax rate of the people who work for him.

[Solecismic]

It would be interesting to run for office on the platform that restoring the Clinton tax rates (where they were when he upped the top rate to 39.6%) is best for everyone. It would play well until the media figured out what that actually meant.

For conservatives, Romney's unpopular "47%" assertion probably still resonates. If people aren't financially invested in the system, do they still respect it?

I'm not sure anything matters even close to as much as the real unemployment level. Our economy is stagnant because millions are leaving the job market and not searching for new work.

[JPhillips]

I think Obama made a big mistake in placing the entire increase in taxes on the upper bracket. It wasn't the right time due to the recession, but he should have pushed for a short term extension of cuts and then allowed them to expire. That probably isn't good politics, but it would be better policy.

[Dutch]

In a system where we spend 20+working years trying to make it to the top, its a bullshit "reward" to penalize those who sacrifice so much to make it. Tax cuts and raises should be a community effort.

[JPhillips]

We're not going to make significant cuts to defense, SS, or healthcare, so taxes need to be at a level to pay for those things. There was a time when that was considered fiscal conservatism.

[Solecismic]

Absolutely. So what constitutes a "fair share" of financing these necessities? Should we ask people to pay for their own health care? If not, should we penalize people for poor choices, like bad nutrition or obesity or smoking or reckless behavior? Should we ask people to pay for infrastructure based on how much they consume (a gas tax, for example)?

We can all agree that the abuses chronicled about the 1% of the 1% of the 1% (like Buffett) who can afford extraordinary tax shelters aren't good. But for the rest, the relatively wealthier are paying a heck of a lot more for the same services. Do they deserve all that vitriol? By most measures they are already paying considerably more than a fair share.

I think many people are tired of adding entitlements to government. There's always a worthy entitlement. But when we complain because the schools no longer fund gifted education and the roads are falling apart, people who aren't paying much, if any, taxes tell us we should be paying more taxes.

And if we try, responsibly, to save for our retirements rather than trying to buy bigger and bigger houses or boats or cars or other toys, then we're told that the hyper-inflation we'll endure sooner or later because our government refuses to stay within its budget is no big deal. Of course it's no big deal if you have nothing saved for the future.