Jon Huntsman (and the like): can they ever win

[PokerGuy]

Good thing we are talking about math then, right?

No, in fact we're not. We're talking about policy decisions based on information that might include facts. The facts themselves are essentially meaningless without interpretation and context.

 

[theeedude]

It is? Everyone except for you must have missed that memo! You've come up with the definitive definition... and one that doesn't actually agree with anyone elses either. Good thinking



lol, you create your own fictional definition, then argue against it. Brilliant!

That's what fiscal conservatism is in reality. Whatever Utopian fantasy of it you have in your head, in real life, it translates into trickle down. To be more precise, "true" fiscal conservatism (at state level) is trickle down with the budget balanced using spending cuts and regressive taxes on the poor, whereas Reaganite fiscal conservatism (at the Federal level) is trickle down plus deficit spending to offset the lost revenue.

 

[PokerGuy]

The "my way or the highway" attitude always comes from one side thinking the other is being unreasonable. No one ever goes, 'You know, those guys have a point, and are being quite reasonable about all this, but I'm not going to work with them anyway!'

It is always wrong.

No, it is not always wrong. It is only wrong if that's the only approach you take on everything. It's not necessarily wrong if you take that approach on certain issues.

You can't work a government if people are not willing to compromise. You must find common ground. We must try to see the world from the other side's viewpoint and understand why he wants to do things the way he does. This way we can find a way to work together.

It depends on the issue. On some issues there can be common ground, and in those cases working together makes sense. On other issues, there simply isn't any common ground, and working together makes no sense.

Lets pretend for a second that one party pushes legislation that makes people with blond hair criminals. There is no 'common ground', and the opposing party would be right to simply say "no, it's stupid and we will thwart your progress in any way possible". Thus you get the point of contention: what are the issues where there really is no room for "common ground"? There are plenty.

Contrary to way some of the extreme rhetoric states, neither side is actually insane or stupid. They are both just looking at the same things from different viewpoints.

Agreed, but both sides have some sensitivity to certain issues where they seem to become completely irrational. Many conservatives for example become irrational around the subject of abortion. Many on the left become completely irrational on the issue of gun control. Etc etc.

 

[PokerGuy]

That's what fiscal conservatism is in reality.

Repeating your own idiotic definition doesn't make it any more valid. Sorry.

 

[theeedude]

Repeating your own idiotic definition doesn't make it any more valid. Sorry.

It's already validated by the reality of fiscal conservatism in practice.

 

[TheSlamma]

Fiscal conservatism IS trickle down.
Fiscal conservatism is cutting spending and income taxes so that more money stays in the hands of "job creators," and claiming that it will result in a better economy. That is trickle down, just by different name.

Don't believe everything you think.

Fiscal conservatives want the national debt to go down, they want federal spending to go down, stop spending more than we take in. What happens when you spend more than you take in as an individual? You eventually collapse. State and local governments it is illegal for them to take on a deficit, but the feds get to and look what they do, it's never ending.

What is the thought with that kind of spending? Eventually you will make back that money somehow? It would be one thing if we were buying into investment type programs like getting people higher education that in the future would lead to them having better jobs that pay more taxes, but food stamps and welfare and excessive military never pay us back.

 

[PokerGuy]

It's already validated by the reality of fiscal conservatism in practice.

You just keep banging your head against that wall. It doesn't change anything when you argue against some made up fictional position you ascribe to "fiscal conservatism". Fail.

 

[PokerGuy]

On a side note, I enjoy the discussion in this thread. With few exceptions, the posts have been interesting, outside the usual platitudes.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't see how the percentage of GDP collected is really material. Remember, we're talking about this in context of making it more or less attractive for a company to be based on the US or elsewhere. From that perspective, what percentage of GDP is not relevant. As a government policy discussion , it's relevant, but not from the decision making perspective for the company.

Also, keep in mind that in other developed countries the effective tax rates cover health insurance (at least to some extent), while in the US it does not. So as an overall measure, the US is very "expensive" from a corporate tax perspective. Obviously there are plenty of other factors, but that's one of them.

That's a good point that health care is rolled into corporate tax rates in some countries, although I imagine how that's accounted for probably varies a lot from country to country.

 

[thraashman]

The only side that has radicalized are republicans, the polls show this and people like finglobes are a perfect example of the overall rights mentality. Hell, I've heard McCain called a RINO along with Romeney and that's just retarded.

You realize that Republicans are the ones that approve more of the 'my way or the highway' approach, right?

While I agree that the voters are primarily to blame, radicalization is not symmetrical in this situation. As shown before:

Oh, the far righties know very well what both of you posted, they just are unable to process it. The first step to becoming a current day conservative is to shut all conscious thinking parts of your brain off.

 

[PokerGuy]

The first step to becoming a current day conservative is to shut all conscious thinking parts of your brain off.

..... and, right on queue, useless platitudes.

 

[BoberFett]

That's what fiscal conservatism is in reality. Whatever Utopian fantasy of it you have in your head, in real life, it translates into trickle down. To be more precise, "true" fiscal conservatism (at state level) is trickle down with the budget balanced using spending cuts and regressive taxes on the poor, whereas Reaganite fiscal conservatism (at the Federal level) is trickle down plus deficit spending to offset the lost revenue.

We've had some really stupid people in this forum, people like Dave come to mind, but you're a real contender.

 

[BoberFett]

..... and, right on queue, useless platitudes.

thraashman is one of the useless drooling morons that are best left on ignore. Contributes nothing to this forum, and likely nothing to this planet. A true waste of carbon and water.

 

[thraashman]

thraashman is one of the useless drooling morons that are best left on ignore. Contributes nothing to this forum, and likely nothing to this planet. A true waste of carbon and water.

Insults from you are like the best compliments. Why in the ever loving hell would I want such a raging dipshit like yourself to like me? I'd have to be as brain-damaged as ... well a conservative to think your opinion was anything but shit.

 

[ivwshane]

thraashman is one of the useless drooling morons that are best left on ignore. Contributes nothing to this forum, and likely nothing to this planet. A true waste of carbon and water.

And you've contributed what exactly to this thread?

 

[IronWing]

Cue, not queue. Carry on.

 

[theeedude]

We've had some really stupid people in this forum, people like Dave come to mind, but you're a real contender.

And, like clockwork, another substance free post from you.

 

[theeedude]

Don't believe everything you think.

Fiscal conservatives want the national debt to go down, they want federal spending to go down, stop spending more than we take in. What happens when you spend more than you take in as an individual? You eventually collapse. State and local governments it is illegal for them to take on a deficit, but the feds get to and look what they do, it's never ending.

What is the thought with that kind of spending? Eventually you will make back that money somehow? It would be one thing if we were buying into investment type programs like getting people higher education that in the future would lead to them having better jobs that pay more taxes, but food stamps and welfare and excessive military never pay us back.

Really, fiscal conservatives want the national debt to go down, but it just so happens to go up when they are in charge. They want to invest in education, but it just so happens that they cut it when they are in charge.

 

[werepossum]

You know, one things conservatives need to learn is that not everything is subject to interpretation. "Facts" do not have two sides, yet every time you are presented with them, you simply brush them off as opinion.

How many times does the conservative tax cut myth have to fail before you simply abandon it as a policy position? Tax Cuts do not offset themselves with increased revenue. They simply do not, period, end of story, regardless of how much you want it to be true. It's a FACT. See above.

Also, a repatriation holiday is not some new policy prescription. We did one back in 2004, and the 300+ billion that was brought back was used mostly to pay dividends, and share buybacks. It had no discernible benefit to the economy, and it's argued it cost the treasury money. I'm sure if we just do the same thing again we can expect a different result, right?

lol Of course conservatives are the ones who need to learn that facts don't have two sides. Maybe we can start with "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Or maybe "If you like your plan, you can keep it."

One would have to be abysmally stupid or abysmally dishonest to profess that government taking money from one American and giving it to other Americans helps the economy, but repatriating hundreds of billions of dollars parked in other nations' economies does not. But hey, perhaps we could compromise - government could take the money, but passes along 100%. Companies have an incentive to bring back money, AND it gets that magic government smoke.

 

[PokerGuy]

Cue, not queue. Carry on.

Dang it, you're right. Apologies!

 

[PokerGuy]

Really, fiscal conservatives want the national debt to go down, but it just so happens to go up when they are in charge.

Can you point to the time when you think actual "fiscal conservatives" were last "in charge"?

Also, interesting you should take that position, considering the national debt has gone up more over the last 7 years than it ever has in history. It just reinforces my position that nobody is really serious about reducing our debts (or even stopping it from growing bigger each day), they just pretend they care... and the reason they do that is that the voting public doesn't really want them to fix it either, they want to have their cake (services from government) and eat it too (not have to pay for it).

 

[sm625]

Fiscal conservatism has nothing to do with so-called trickle down economics.

 

[dank69]

Fiscal conservatism has nothing to do with so-called trickle down economics.

So cutting taxes and spending doesn't benefit the rich and buttfuck the poor?

 

[theeedude]

Can you point to the time when you think actual "fiscal conservatives" were last "in charge"?

Also, interesting you should take that position, considering the national debt has gone up more over the last 7 years than it ever has in history. It just reinforces my position that nobody is really serious about reducing our debts (or even stopping it from growing bigger each day), they just pretend they care... and the reason they do that is that the voting public doesn't really want them to fix it either, they want to have their cake (services from government) and eat it too (not have to pay for it).

Reagan, Bush1, Bush2. Fiscal conservatives who ran up the debt when they actually got in power, because when implemented as actual real world policy, fiscal conservatism is just trickle down.

 

[fskimospy]

Can you point to the time when you think actual "fiscal conservatives" were last "in charge"?

Can you? I've found the description of fiscal conservatism to be very malleable.

Also, interesting you should take that position, considering the national debt has gone up more over the last 7 years than it ever has in history. It just reinforces my position that nobody is really serious about reducing our debts (or even stopping it from growing bigger each day), they just pretend they care... and the reason they do that is that the voting public doesn't really want them to fix it either, they want to have their cake (services from government) and eat it too (not have to pay for it).

Well again, the economics literature right now points pretty strongly to our choice to increase the debt being a really really good idea. It's hard to argue that people aren't serious about reducing our debts if the actions they would take (cutting taxes and/or reducing spending) would have actually made our debt problem worse. (fiscal multipliers were above 1)