2012 Presidential Campaign

[PilotMan]

I thought that this was very interesting considering some of the numbers being bandied about having to do with the size of the government.

PolitiFact | Romney says government has grown from 27 percent to 37 percent of U.S. economy

Here are some highlights:

Fiscal year 1961: 27.4 percent
Fiscal year 1962: 27.8 percent
Fiscal year 1963: 27.7 percent

Fiscal year 2009: 36.5 percent
Fiscal year 2010: 35.0 percent

But the big increases came from two categories: Social Security and Medicare, which more than tripled as a share of GDP, and other federal payments to individuals, which fell slightly short of tripling.

Medicare didn’t exist until 1965, so a big share of the increase Romney pointed to stems from this single program.

While these are undoubtedly government expenditures, one could argue that they are actually pass-throughs of payments from the American public to itself. And it’s worth noting that Social Security and Medicare -- the drivers of government growth -- are among the most popular of all government programs.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis publishes statistics that break down the components of national GDP. If you take the category "government consumption expenditures and gross investment" for all levels of government -- a figure that doesn’t include transfer payments -- and divide it by GDP, government accounted for 22.0 percent of GDP in 1963 and 20.7 percent of GDP in 2010.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

While I understand the argument that everyone should have skin in the game, the fact is that there is huge wealth disparity in the country and the tax rate has to adjust to reflect that. Wealthier people get far more out of the government than poorer individuals. The system is sort of built around them.

Not only is it built around them, it's built so that they can mold it and reimagine the system to keep benefiting them.

Tax rates are at historically low levels. Even at my very low rate I could manage an increase. As long as there is money to be made, people will make it, regardless of how much they have to pay the taxman.

"No, I don't think I'll make this deal. It's just not worth it to make 15k when I could have made 25k if the damn tax rate wasn't so high." - there is nothing logical about this statement.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Wealthier people get far more out of the government than poorer individuals. The system is sort of built around them.

What do you mean "sort of"?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

the tax rate has to adjust to reflect that.

We've got a fundamental disagreement right there, makes it nigh on impossible to avoid an impasse.

Wealthier people get far more out of the government than poorer individuals.

A questionable argument at the very most. They make the most out of the framework it provides in a broad sense but a great deal of their success also comes in spite of the persistent interference of government.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Not only is it built around them, it's built so that they can mold it and reimagine the system to keep benefiting them.

Tax rates are at historically low levels. Even at my very low rate I could manage an increase. As long as there is money to be made, people will make it, regardless of how much they have to pay the taxman.

"No, I don't think I'll make this deal. It's just not worth it to make 15k when I could have made 25k if the damn tax rate wasn't so high." - there is nothing logical about this statement.

The arguments about raising income tax rates and capital gains tax rates causing less jobs and/or less investing is laughable. Can't believe more people don't hit back on those talking points.

I still think the easiest solution is to just make capital gains tax taxed the same as income. It's stupid that we make these exceptions. Income is income.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We've got a fundamental disagreement right there, makes it nigh on impossible to avoid an impasse.



A questionable argument at the very most. They make the most out of the framework it provides in a broad sense but a great deal of their success also comes in spite of the persistent interference of government.

Damn that government for wanting corporations to make products that are safe for human consumption and don't destroy the environment. Damn them!

Fucking ridiculous. I hope Jon that nothing bad ever happens to a member of your family that could've been avoided with a little vigilance on the part of government.

[QuikSand]

I'm rather surprised that the prediction markets have not really moved much after this weekend. Perry seemed to have gotten a bump (moving from roughly 30% to 37% likely to win the nomination) but pretty much no movement from Bachmann. I wasn't sure she would beat Paul in the straw poll, but once she did I expected her shares to move from 7% to something like 12% or so.

Odd to see it not happen. Pawlenty was with Bachmann and Paul at about 7% each before the straw polls, too, and Romney is basically unchanged. Where is that chance going?

[larrymcg421]

I would think T-Paw being out would almost certainly help Romney.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We've got a fundamental disagreement right there, makes it nigh on impossible to avoid an impasse.

Listen, my posts in the past have said I don't think the solution is to just run out and tax the crap out of all the rich people. But I don't like the argument that they already pay too much. The rich control such a large percent of the wealth in this country that it's going to have to predominately come from them. When 1% owns 42% of the wealth, they are simply going to have to pay more since they are the ones making most of the money.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

A questionable argument at the very most. They make the most out of the framework it provides in a broad sense but a great deal of their success also comes in spite of the persistent interference of government.

I don't see how that's questionable. Those with the most money benefit the most from a stable government. Those with the most money benefit the most from the bailouts. You have a system of casino capitalism in place. Large financial institutions can't fail when they screw up. Their investors can't lose their money. That's one hell of a safety net that is put in place for people.

And I don't buy the government holding businesses back. Many of the most profitable companies benefit a great deal by the policies of our own government. Pharmaceutical companies have a deal in place where the government can't negotiate prices for drugs from them. They have lobbied so that we as consumers can't buy our drugs from Canada at a cheaper price. Defense contractors routinely overbill and siphon funds out of the government to great benefit of their investors. Oil companies can use the full force of the U.S. military whenever they see an opportunity to build new oil fields in a country. This doesn't even account for the billions that many corporations get in tax benefits that small businesses simply don't get.

I'm sure there are cases where government has held business back, but most of your wealthiest companies have just bought enough representatives to put laws in place that put them at a huge advantage over everyone else. The problem is that government has said that Bank of America gets special treatment but the small regional bank doesn't. That GM and Chrysler get special treatment but other manufacturers don't.

[JPhillips]

I really think Bachmann has a shot at the nomination. She's great at throwing red meat to the base. If Perry stumbles she'll do very well in the South and Mitt may not be able to catch her.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I would think T-Paw being out would almost certainly help Romney.

Kinda my thinking too... maybe Romney's soft showing in the straw coupled with his gain of "electability-seekers" is the combination that had him staying flat. I'm just surprised at the lack of movement for Bachmann.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I really think Bachmann has a shot at the nomination. She's great at throwing red meat to the base. If Perry stumbles she'll do very well in the South and Mitt may not be able to catch her.

I don't know anymore now that Perry is in the race. From what I've read, he's incredible at raising money and I just thought he came across much better in front of the audience. Bachmann comes across negative which is nice red meat for the base, but Perry came across in that almost perfect balance of negative but with optimism for the future. I just don't know if a President can be elected strictly on negativity.

I think Perry will clean up down South while Romney will win the moderate states. I say Bachmann is out after South Carolina.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Listen, my posts in the past have said I don't think the solution is to just run out and tax the crap out of all the rich people.

I don't think I said you said otherwise, but... carry on.

When 1% owns 42% of the wealth, they are simply going to have to pay more since they are the ones making most of the money.

Brings us quickly to the impasse I mentioned. They'll still pay more under an extremely flat system, but they'd do so without the degree of inequity the current system has. That difference? Not a problem for me. Different rates? Major problem.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

A questionable argument at the very most. They make the most out of the framework it provides in a broad sense but a great deal of their success also comes in spite of the persistent interference of government.

Ahhh, the one and very possibly only point me and Jon tend to agree on. (And the below is not to Jon directly, despite my quoting)

I'd be more than interested to know what services the very wealthy receive from the government that the poor do not. (That do not have the words 'tax loopholes' in them).

Tell you what. Corporate tax subsidies aside (which I personally think should be completely removed - there's your revenue hike), talk to me about tax hikes once you've drastically shrunk the size of government. Show me you're making a committed effort to effectively managing the budget and being smart with my money, and we'll see about giving you a little more.

Until then, our government is a bottomless pit of spend spend spend debt debt debt with little (if lucky) to no (the norm) return on our 'investment'. They have repeatedly shown their incompetence in managing money, and deserve not a dime more.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Damn that government for wanting corporations to make products that are safe for human consumption and don't destroy the environment. Damn them!

Careful what you infer, I singled out neither area. That's your projection, not necessarily accurate.

Elements, perhaps, but not nearly the whole (nor even all that close to what I was thinking of).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I'd be more than interested to know what services the very wealthy receive from the government that the poor do not. (That do not have the words 'tax loopholes' in them).

Incorporation laws and patent protection are two biggies.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Kinda my thinking too... maybe Romney's soft showing in the straw coupled with his gain of "electability-seekers" is the combination that had him staying flat. I'm just surprised at the lack of movement for Bachmann.

But isn't her expectations game pretty much set? Poll well in Iowa. Win Iowa. Get destroyed in New Hampshire. Do not quite well enough in South Carolina. And end up fading out after the GOP establishment solidifies behind the non-Bachmann in the race?

I don't see any developments in her favor that are not already priced into her shares unless and until (1) she does well in New Hampshire, (2) she destroys in South Carolina, or (3) Palin chooses not to run and most of her polling support goes to Bachmann and not Perry.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Brings us quickly to the impasse I mentioned. They'll still pay more under an extremely flat system, but they'd do so without the degree of inequity the current system has. That difference? Not a problem for me. Different rates? Major problem.

So they'll pay more under this new system but the people who buy their products have less money (since they'd also be paying more). Not sure how this would be good for the rich or the poor.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I'd be more than interested to know what services the very wealthy receive from the government that the poor do not. (That do not have the words 'tax loopholes' in them).

The more you have, the more you are at risk to lose from an unstable government.

And as I mentioned, there are a lot of sweetheart deals involving large corporations. I can't buy prescription drugs from Canada because it would force drug companies to have competition. Our government for some reason can't negotiate with the massive buying power they have with all the Medicare patients.

These kind of deals take place all the time. Banks and financial institutions get massive bailouts, easy access to interest free cash. This doesn't benefit the unemployed guy with nothing to his name, it benefits the guy who might have a few million with those banks that would lose it if they went insolvent. It benefits the guy with lots of investments.

The more you have, the more you have to lose if the system collapses.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

When 1% owns 42% of the wealth...

Is this before or after they pay for company expenditures, invest in other companies and employee salaries and benefits?

If 42% of our wealth is used strickly for buying yachts from Australia then I agree that shit has got to stop.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Is this before or after they pay for company expenditures, invest in other companies and employee salaries and benefits?

If 42% of our wealth is used strickly for buying yachts from Australia then I agree that shit has got to stop.

Investments don't reduce your wealth, they in fact typically raise it.

[JPhillips]

If lower taxation on the wealthy will bring vast benefits, what's the ideal rate? 10%? 1%? 0%? Seriously, if we'll all feel the benefits, why tax the wealthy at all?

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Tell you what. Corporate tax subsidies aside (which I personally think should be completely removed - there's your revenue hike), talk to me about tax hikes once you've drastically shrunk the size of government. Show me you're making a committed effort to effectively managing the budget and being smart with my money, and we'll see about giving you a little more.

one thing i always find interesting is how many people identify thenselves with the superrich who are not at all the superrich, and never ever ever will be in that category. we're not talking about a family making $250,000 a year here. i know nothing of CW, and it's none of my business, so this isn't a personal dig, i just think so many people think of themselves as the superrich but the sad truth is that they'll never get there.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Tell you what. Corporate tax subsidies aside (which I personally think should be completely removed - there's your revenue hike), talk to me about tax hikes once you've drastically shrunk the size of government. Show me you're making a committed effort to effectively managing the budget and being smart with my money, and we'll see about giving you a little more.

Let me know when the offer of $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases is accepted by the GOP. Until then, it is absurd to attack the people who want tax increases as being unreasonable.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

one thing i always find interesting is how many people identify thenselves with the superrich who are not at all the superrich, and never ever ever will be in that category. we're not talking about a family making $250,000 a year here. i know nothing of CW, and it's none of my business, so this isn't a personal dig, i just think so many people think of themselves as the superrich but the sad truth is that they'll never get there.

No, I'm not even in the same zip code as the super rich. However, I am still of the belief that taxing those with all the money to finance our ludicrous government is a Bad, Bad Idea.

[RainMaker]

What about that ludicrous government financing the super rich? I guess my issue is that if it's going to benefit a particular group more than others, then there should be a disparity in who finances.

I'm fine with not raising their taxes if that means the end of bailouts, interest-free loans, and sweetheart government contracts. But we both know that will never happen.

[Coffee Warlord]

We both know neither side really wants to cut their pet projects, ever. Both sides have them, both sides will never seriously hack into them.

Oh. And I was dead set against the bailouts from the start, and still am. I'm equal opportunity for demolishing government agencies/programs/pork.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Oh. And I was dead set against the bailouts from the start, and still am. I'm equal opportunity for demolishing government agencies/programs/pork.

Honestly, without them, we wouldn't even be discussing half this crap, because there would be bigger fish to fry. They were necessary and without them would have sent the economy into a tailspin that made the last 2 years look like a day at Disney.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by panerd

The greatest accomplishment of our founding fathers was convincing so many Americans that the government taking money at gunpoint is somehow different than the King/Queen taking money at gunpoint.

Fixed it for you. For all the love of the tea party and our so-called tax revolt, it had nothing to do with taxes but rather who was collecting the taxes.

[panerd]

5:00 mark on are about Paul, rest is funny too.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Investments don't reduce your wealth, they in fact typically raise it.

Sure, if you sell your stocks and put your money in a shoebox. But I don't think that's a typical strategy.

[albionmoonlight]

People in these discussions always give the token acknowledgement to the fact that the upcoming uncontrollable and unsustainable spending is driven almost exclusively by defense, medicare, and (to a lesser extent) social security. Non-defense discretionary spending is basically a rounding error compared to those programs.

But then the "government is too big" discussion pivots immediately to non-defense discretionary spending. Generally driven by vague impressions and anecdotes. "My cousin was roomates with a guy for a few years who did, like, lake surveys or something for the EPA and he was going to be able to retire at, like, 50 with his full salary, and that guy was totally lazy and got 4 weeks or something of vacation every year on top of all of his benefits."

This board is better than most, actually, in terms of each side making somewhat rational arguments. But the generally public seems HORRIBLY mis-informed about the whole problem. Until people understand--truly and honestly understand--that we are going to need to (1) raise taxes, (2) make real cuts to programs that people like (Medicare, defense, social security), and/or (3) have unsustainable debt going forward, we won't get anywhere.

As long as the myth persists that there's some random guy in Akron getting too many food stamps and if we just stop that then all of our problems go away, the people have no incentive to accept the actual hard choices that we are going to have to make.

[albionmoonlight]

Oh, and the relationship between waste/fraud/abuse and the popularity of government programs is also somewhat perverse.

The programs that have the most public support tend to also have more waste because their overall budget is harder to attack and cut. The unpopular programs are always under attack and have had to cut out a lot of the waste in order to survive.

So, when people (rightly) want to go after waste, that would have an inverse relationship to the programs that they actually would want to cut back.

[JPhillips]

Maybe Perry isn't the savior.

“If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous, or treasonous, in my opinion.”

He needs to learn that what plays in Texas with the tea party won't play well nationally. Accusing the Fed chairman of treason is way out of bounds.

[albionmoonlight]

Perry is at 38% to get the nomination right now at InTrade.

I wonder if now is the time to sell high. He's the Golden Boy/Savior/Teastablishment candidate that can do and has done no wrong.

I can't help but think that, even if he ends up winning the nomination, his numbers will go down a bit as the attacks start to come in. Or if Palin enters the race. Or when a camera catches him eating his boogers backstage at a campaign rally. Or when any one of the dozens of semi-unpredictable things happens that will cause people to re-evaluate him.

Seems like a chance to short-sell high and get out when he dips.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Maybe Perry isn't the savior.



He needs to learn that what plays in Texas with the tea party won't play well nationally. Accusing the Fed chairman of treason is way out of bounds.

He's a lunatic. He's the male version of Bachman/Palin.

[rowech]

Perry is so easy to knock off. All they have to do is compare to him to Bush. People are going to be way too turned off to vote for someone like him.

I continue to believe Romney is the only Republican who could beat Obama and I also continue to believe the Republicans aren't going to run him.

[Ksyrup]

Dubya ruined it for Texas governors and his brother.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Perry is at 38% to get the nomination right now at InTrade.

I wonder if now is the time to sell high. He's the Golden Boy/Savior/Teastablishment candidate that can do and has done no wrong.

I can't help but think that, even if he ends up winning the nomination, his numbers will go down a bit as the attacks start to come in. Or if Palin enters the race. Or when a camera catches him eating his boogers backstage at a campaign rally. Or when any one of the dozens of semi-unpredictable things happens that will cause people to re-evaluate him.

Seems like a chance to short-sell high and get out when he dips.

You're good at this stuff, ever think about writing on it?

[JPhillips]

I'm surprised that Huntsman is near 7% on Intrade. I think that's higher than he's polled anywhere.

[larrymcg421]

Michelle Bachmann at 6.7% seems insanely low to me.

[Ksyrup]

Nice choice of words.

[JediKooter]

Just heard Perry talk for the first time...he sounds like a smarmy used car salesman (far far worse than other politicians) and all he was doing was introducing his family.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

As long as the myth persists that there's some random guy in Akron getting too many food stamps and if we just stop that then all of our problems go away, the people have no incentive to accept the actual hard choices that we are going to have to make.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. I still can't figure out how this stuff is playing so well, when there are absolutely no facts to back it up.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

This pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. I still can't figure out how this stuff is playing so well, when there are absolutely no facts to back it up.

The majority of Americans are stupid/ignorant and too lazy to inform themselves. Really not that surprising - although it is depressing when you realize how deep/far it extends.

You can see it in this whole crusade against intellectuals/education.

Hell - you can see it everywhere. I know a phenomenally smart investor (client of ours...ex-fund manager for a HUGE mutual fund company where he was massively successful) who believes that Global Warming is BS. Guy can pick stocks like nobody's business, but he can't/won't take the time to read the available science (even the "pop science for the masses") and process it.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Just heard Perry talk for the first time...he sounds like a smarmy used car salesman (far far worse than other politicians) and all he was doing was introducing his family.

He reminds me of Greg Stillson from the book The Dead Zone.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Rizon

He reminds me of Greg Stillson from the book The Dead Zone.

Never read the book, but, I assume he's not the most honest of people in the book?

[I. J. Reilly]

The funny thing about all of the comparisons between Dubya and Perry is how good they make Dubya look. If you thought Dubya was a little to level headed and wonkish, then Perry is your man.

At some point Perry is going to get carried away in a stump speech and demand that America succeed from America. Then some poor staffer will have to explain to him what all the fuss is about.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Just heard Perry talk for the first time...he sounds like a smarmy used car salesman (far far worse than other politicians) and all he was doing was introducing his family.

I definitely agree with you. Sadly I think the answer for why he will be popular (and possibly win the nomination) isn't hard to figure out...

Most Americans take Bible stories literally - Washington Times

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This good be a good turn for those looking for something else outside of the mess that the Republican Party is currently offering.......

Paul Ryan for President in 2012? - FoxNews.com

I'd choose him over any of the current candidates.