Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

Well, every time the Laffer Curve has been applied in my life, it has worked as its assumptions indicate. Jack Kennedy based his economic plan for his presidency on it (although by another name) as did Reagan. It is silly to believe in static scoring where a tax cut has no impact on citizens' economic decisions. Of course it does. Kennedy never believed that a tax cut paid for itself, or at least, he didn't phrase it that way. Reagan did believe a cut would produce more income for the Federal Government, and his cuts did just that. This was during a time when taxation was viewed as raising necessary money to run the government and not as a "social justice" mechanism (which means taking from the productive to give to the non-productive). The history of that period has been rewritten to accommodate redistribution.

In 1981 or so, I was paying 70% to the Feds and 4.6% to the state not including SS. That was cut to 28%, later raised to 33%. When you go from 80% or more to roughly 1/3, you stop trying to advantage yourself by using tax dodges, and you start producing.

Your vote was never in doubt.

[Da Geezer]

I read an interesting piece today about the probability of a contested convention. I am missing one of the 17 states left.

If you take Trump's pledged delegates as of today and add all those delegates of NY, CN, DE, MY, RI, WV, NJ, and NM

And then you give Trump all the pledged delegates of Penn, CA, OR, WA, and IN

and give Cruz/Kasich only SD, MT, NE,

Trump still falls short by 41 delegates.

There are 170 or so delegates pledged to Rubio, and about 150 of what the Dems call superdelegates, but it is a difficult matter for Trump to get to 1,237.

[Wild Hoss]

. And when you make money, you start caring about things beyond identity.

There are untold millions of well-to-do Evangelicals that disagree.

[Da Geezer]

Your vote was never in doubt.

Which has nothing to do with the veracity of the Laffer Curve, or the history of tax cuts. You should stick to analyzing Senior Days at UM because you clearly know nothing about history or economics.

[hodgkal]

Geezer:

"You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for the bureaucrat, procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing" Thomas Sowell"

One of my favorite books was Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" written in 1982. It is one of the most coherent explanations of how liberals conservatives see the world differently. Well worth reading. It has helped shape my thinking ever since.

[hodgkal]

As for the cirremt election one of the top priorities for me is foreign policy and the importance of avoiding more wars. The war party in this country has literally bankrupted our nation and I'm amazed that more politicians have not learned this lesson. The current election is almost bereft of candidates with a clear view of this challenge. Seems like you have to project "toughness" to appeal to the majority of voters.

This morning I read a powerful statement by Philip Giraldi at the Anti-War website about the current candidates:

"So how do I rank them? Bernie is best choice but unlikely to be on the ballot. I then would have to go with Trump in hopes that I can trust him to pay heed to the whispering of his better angels. That leaves Hillary, who is completely corrupted by interest groups and a reliable establishment warmonger. Or Cruz who comes across as a crazed zealot with little in the way of the Christian virtues that he so often cites. Kasich doesn’t seem to actually stand for anything but maybe he would prove to be a tough talking street guy too timid and insecure to be dangerous. It’s a hard choice, but I think that Hillary is capable of doing more damage than Cruz, who would be reined in somewhat by a Congress that truly hates him. I would go with Bernie, then Trump, then Kasich. I could never vote for Cruz or Hillary under any circumstances. God save America!"

[hodgkal]

per Wikipedia:

Philip Giraldi (born c. 1946[1]) is a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and a columnist and television commentator who is the Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a group that advocates for more even-handed policies by the U.S. government in the Middle East.[2]

[Wild Hoss]

Don?t want even-handed.

Want out.

[froot loops]

There isn't a good choice in regards to foreign policy. I don't think that guy has listened to Kasich. In one debate he had American ground forces in Libya, Syria and Iraq.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Which has nothing to do with the veracity of the Laffer Curve, or the history of tax cuts. You should stick to analyzing Senior Days at UM because you clearly know nothing about history or economics.

This is a real dick post. I find it mind boggling how some privileged few on this board get to be dicks but others are censored and or banned for far less egregious statements.

But, onward nonetheless.

[Dr. Strangelove]

That analysis leaves out suburbia -- where elections are decided.

I also wouldn't break things down quite like that. I think it's generally true, but city politics, at least in shitass rust belt cities, are still giant patronage machines. It's all single-party and god only knows how corrupt. Hell, my boy -- the Mayor of Youngstown -- was just convicted of misdeameanor bribe receiving or something and immediately announced he'd still be seeking re-election (and he'll probably win).

If it were just services perhaps non-urban folks would be a bit more understanding. But when there's a gnawing (and, IMO, correct) opinion that the services are being provided in wildly inefficient and corrupt ways, well...no...just no.

Well, hey, welcome to America. There have been party machines and corruption in major city governments since at least the 1820's. Mostly the Democratic Party. Rural folks love to imagine themselves as being ethically and morally virtuous whilst the wicked demons dwelling in all cities reap the benefits from their back-breaking toil. 81% of all Americans currently live in urban areas, FWIW.

I do think the Republicans have better state party machines. I think their political philosophy encourages to focus on that level of government and in turn it helped lead to their seizure of the House for the past 20 years. But from 1945-1995 the Democrats absolutely dominated the House and to a degree that the Republicans today don't enjoy. Is it just state level organization that's fallen apart for the Dems?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Here's how Hillary's funding works and why the Democratic Party establishment is so tied to the hip with her.

[youtube]rwDJmCD6iDA[/youtube]

[Dr. Strangelove]

Hillary lying for 13 minutes. If you can stand listening to her for that long

[youtube]-dY77j6uBHI[/youtube]

[Hannibal]

I know you guys don't like Trump, but...

dayyum

[youtube]T36Z-CE2tIU[/youtube]

I think Rocky approves?

[hack]

Fake tits.