RS4Rings said: JorgeBurrito said: I don't know I am mixed on the proposal, honestly with how much debt we have right now I am not sure tax cuts are really what we should be looking at. Many including myself are in the belief that tax cuts spur growth and in the end more money will flow into Government coffers from it.
I hate economics. Laffler curve says tax cuts when above the inflection point will increase immediate gov't revenues. And tax cuts, while below the inflection point, would decrease immediate gov't revenues.
Laffler curve says nothing about long term gov't revenues.
In all honestly - if the gov't can spend money wisely - taxes to build needed infrastructure/things can spur growth better then private industry. But this is more the exception, not the rule.
Ie - gov't spending in WWII spurred America long term growth - vs leaving the cash in private hands. Today is not WWII, and I don't believe gov't spending is more effective then private spending. But acknowledge it can be.
camiolo said: JorgeBurrito said: The only person I think would actually dominate Obama in an election is Huntsman Maybe. I like him best - his platform his good - but he's found no success thus-far. Is it because he's a bad campaigner? It's because he's sane, intelligent, and pro-science.
Same here...and that makes me happy that I'm uneducated on it. This way what some book or professor said is not stuck in my head and I can just use common sense when approaching the subject.
0AfterRebates said: joyrae said: (stop using my posts as a bookmark, 0AfterRebates )
I will give green to every post I read in this thread. I respect all peoples opinions. Only bigots reject views that don't fit within the paradigm that they believe in.
I really think that you are are a great person joyrae. I'm not using you (or anyone else) as a bookmark. My actions will speak for themselves if you don't believe me.
camiolo said: RS4Rings said: camiolo said: RS4Rings said: camiolo said: "As president, Romney will seek to eliminate taxation on capital gains, dividends, and interest for any taxpayer with an adjusted gross income of under $200,000".
A retired individual, with $3 million saved/invested paying 5% dividends/interest - will pay no taxes. That's what Mitt is advocating. Also this would be huge for the average person and encourage them to invest more and would have more money to spend helping the economy. The only people this wont help is the rich and I thought thats the way people want it?
Confused - are you stating Romney's policy would be good for the average person?
Since the average person makes under $200k, Yes it would be good for them. The more they save in not paying taxes the more they will spend
Average household made $50,233.00 in 2006. (Average person made less).
I agree, paying less in taxes is good for an individual. I state, it's unfair that retiree's wouldn't pay taxes - while working people do. Plus, if you have $3 million, Romney's plan encourages you not to work.
If the workers don't want to pay into social security for current seniors and disabled, why should the retirees give a heck about YOU and your taxes? All I've heard for past 3 years is end social security blah blah blah.
RS4Rings said: mewhojen said: I think the Republican party will have to do some tap-dancing to get a candidate ready to run against the incumbent...and by this, they need to find a moderate Republican.
I doubt a straight-line Republican will be an easy sell this election.And the only one that fits that bill is Romney, While being pretty much a fiscal conservative (which most of the Country does want) he is not a true social issue conservative. The fact he did a healthcare plan that gave Planned Parenthood a seat the table shows thatOne problem with Mitt Romney is that he doesn't believe in himself.
MadAnthony said: I have much less of a problem with a state-level government health care plan than a national one. States being the laboratory of democracy and all, plus if you don't like it it's a lot easier to move to a different state.I have much more of a problem with state-level government health care plans because state governments are much easier to bribe (here in AZ, being a legislator is a part time job, so most "work" for real estate, health care, or utility interests), tend to be less competent than the feds, and have a wonderful record running Medicaid (mission statement: Let 'em die if it saves money).
0AfterRebates said: Giving green makes it so one idiot can't make a post red. Red just pisses some people off. Red make the poster mad (sometimes, if they see it).Red causes some people to resort to PM stalking.
camiolo said: Easy and hard - Answer's easy. Question - how does society lower the cost of health care (ie - things like a heart transplant) - and how does society reduce waste in the Health Care system. Answer - similar to how most costs are lowered. Provide consumer's with information, and require consumer's dollars be at risk. Second answer - Health Insurance pays nothing if health care spending is under $10,000. Over $10k (or whatever number) - insurance pays an increasing percentage.
I don't think it is that easy. When you are sick you will spend whatever amount necessary to get healthy. I don't want people going into large debt (and for the average $50K family, $10K is big debt) just so they can be healthy. In addition, your plan would just discourage people from going to the Doctor when issues are small and cheaply correctable because they don't want to pay for the exam. This will lead to larger more costly "disaster" scenarios.
larrymoencurly said: RS4Rings said: mewhojen said: I think the Republican party will have to do some tap-dancing to get a candidate ready to run against the incumbent...and by this, they need to find a moderate Republican.
I doubt a straight-line Republican will be an easy sell this election.And the only one that fits that bill is Romney, While being pretty much a fiscal conservative (which most of the Country does want) he is not a true social issue conservative. The fact he did a healthcare plan that gave Planned Parenthood a seat the table shows thatOne problem with Mitt Romney is that he doesn't believe in himself. Not true, he flip-flops on it.
RS4Rings said: JorgeBurrito said: I don't know I am mixed on the proposal, honestly with how much debt we have right now I am not sure tax cuts are really what we should be looking at. Many including myself are in the belief that tax cuts spur growth and in the end more money will flow into Government coffers from it.The problem with your belief is that the tax cuts of the 1980s decreased revenue but probably spurred growth and jobs (also the recovery coincided with tax hikes that followed for about 7 years in a row), the tax hikes of the 1980s increased revenue and probably spurred growth and jobs, and the tax cuts of the 2000s decreased revenue and jobs and, along with other factors, gave us the Great Recession. IOW the record is mixed, and the effects on revenue depend on the tax rates that had been in effect before the cuts were implemented, something "tax cuts are magic" fundamentalists don't want to admit. When taxes are already very low on investment income and corporations, as they have been for a decade, I doubt that cutting them further will help the economy.
Also how do tax cuts help when spending is about 24% of GDP while revenue is about 15%?
OTOH national debt is overrated as a problem because the cost of net debt interest is actually a smaller proportion of our GDP now than it was even in the mid-1980s to mid-1990s.
HumDoHamaraDo said: larrymoencurly said: RS4Rings said: mewhojen said: I think the Republican party will have to do some tap-dancing to get a candidate ready to run against the incumbent...and by this, they need to find a moderate Republican.
I doubt a straight-line Republican will be an easy sell this election.And the only one that fits that bill is Romney, While being pretty much a fiscal conservative (which most of the Country does want) he is not a true social issue conservative. The fact he did a healthcare plan that gave Planned Parenthood a seat the table shows thatOne problem with Mitt Romney is that he doesn't believe in himself. Not true, he flip-flops on it. Why would he flip-flop so much if he believed in himself? Ron Paul doesn't do that (OK, bad example).
JorgeBurrito said: Looks I am late to the conversation so I will throw out some thoughts
Obama is in an extremely weak position this election, but the Republicans have been unable to come up with a strong candidate. The only person I think would actually dominate Obama in an election is Huntsman, but he is way too sane and reasonable to make it through the Republican primary. I am pretty much assuming Republicans will end up with Romney, anyone else would get beat by Obama by a large margin. The fact that Romney has had such a hard time breaking 25% in polls of Republicans show me the base really isn't very excited about him though.
The election I think comes down to the economy, plans for debt reduction, and healthcare. Many of the typical Republican strong points, especially foreign policy, I think Obama has pretty good arguments that he has been very strong. Economy: Many feel it has not improved enough, especially considering how much money has been thrown at it, what it does between now and the election is huge...people in decent paying jobs tend to be pretty happy, those that are unemployed and have family/friends that are unemployed are not. Debt reduction: To get the independents I think it is critical to try and keep medicare and social security reasonable intact, these are both popular programs with anyone that isn't hardcore republican. People want these programs fixed, not altogether thrown away. If Romney would come forth and offer to increase taxes on the rich, even if it just some tiny percentage it would be huge, an overwhelming percentage of people favor it and it would go to show that he is willing to compromise. Healthcare: Obama needs to emphasize the strong points of Obamacare, which there are many. The big weakness is I just don't see how it is going to reduce overall costs and the national mandate is a little iffy legal wise. Romney needs to come up with a specific plan on how address this. If he wants to let states come up with their own models, that is fine...but he needs to offer some incentives to ensure the states actually do it and he need to set forth a "model" plan. The big challenge I think to both candidates is to come up with away to actually lower the costs of healthcare without going to single payer. All I have heard from Republicans is tort reform, but that is only a very small part of runaway cost issues. I have no clue what the answer here is, and am really open to suggestions from either political party.
Republicans tend to fall in line better then the dems. I don't think obama has much of a chance this election no matter who they run.
1. Someone who remembers exactly what it means to be a public servant.
2. Someone who doesn't care about special interests or lobbyists, and is in fact aggravated by their mere existence.
3. Someone who has lived the life of the every man, so they understand what it's like to work for minimum wage, have bad health insurance, shop sales and even use coupons. They understand what it's like to struggle so they really can speak for me.
4. Someone who has enough business sense to run the largest company that we've got... the US Government.
5. Someone who has a heart and a brain... and knows exactly when to use each to make decisions.
6. Someone who understands that although it's nice to share... we share with OUR people first... then the rest of the world.
7. Someone who is strong enough to say "no" but wise enough to say "yes" when each is applicable.
8. Someone who understands that their actions while in office effect generations to come... and care enough about future generations to do not only what helps us today, but won't f**k us up tomorrow.
(I could write for hours...)
I'd be happy to have just half of these qualities found in my BOSS. Chiefly number 3. (sorry for taking an off-topic post off-topic - it's been a rough week!)
Republicans tend to fall in line better then the dems. I don't think obama has much of a chance this election no matter who they run.
People forget how great at campaigning Obama is, he is a far better at campaigning then he is at being president (that is coming from a democrat). And while the democratic base isn't exactly thrilled with Obama, they are absolutely terrified about Republicans in control after what they have seen since the midterm elections. I think this will be a very close election with record amounts of money being spent by both sides. Of course, that kills me to say that because I think money is the biggest issue with our political system right now.
scrouds said: The base doesn't elect presidents, the victims caught in the middle does.
That was actually my point, I was just saying that the dem base has enough reason to come out and vote as well (unlike the mid term elections) that like most elections it will be decided by the independents. In my previous post on what I think the election will come down to, I was discussing that from the standpoint of the independents.
kamalktk said: camiolo said: JorgeBurrito said: The only person I think would actually dominate Obama in an election is Huntsman Maybe. I like him best - his platform his good - but he's found no success thus-far. Is it because he's a bad campaigner? It's because he's sane, intelligent, and pro-science.
I think skipping Iowa was a huge mistake, because it got so much publicity and he missed out on that.
I think the other major problem is that he has a lot of the same appeal as Romney (moderate, electable, someone that Republicans might not agree with on everything but will vote for because they would rather have a moderate in office than someone further to the left). So the pragmatic Republicans figure if they are going to vote pragmatically, they might as well vote for the guy who is well-funded and leading the polls rather than vote for the underdog, split the moderate primary vote, and end up running someone who isn't electable in the general election.
MadAnthony said: kamalktk said: camiolo said: JorgeBurrito said: The only person I think would actually dominate Obama in an election is Huntsman Maybe. I like him best - his platform his good - but he's found no success thus-far. Is it because he's a bad campaigner? It's because he's sane, intelligent, and pro-science.
I think skipping Iowa was a huge mistake, because it got so much publicity and he missed out on that.
I think the other major problem is that he has a lot of the same appeal as Romney (moderate, electable, someone that Republicans might not agree with on everything but will vote for because they would rather have a moderate in office than someone further to the left). So the pragmatic Republicans figure if they are going to vote pragmatically, they might as well vote for the guy who is well-funded and leading the polls rather than vote for the underdog, split the moderate primary vote, and end up running someone who isn't electable in the general election.
I agree completely with what you said, although I think he has way more independent appeal than Romney. I am largely a democrat, although have been known to vote for Republicans when I believe they are honest, do not see science as the enemy (Being a scientist this is important to me), are actually fiscally conservative and not just pretend to be, and well...not crazy. I would probably vote for Huntsman over Obama, but will never vote for Romney or any of the other Republicans (Romney fails the honesty hurdle big time, the rest the sanity hurdle).
<soap-box> For me, one of the biggest things that has turned my stomach over the last decade (as long I've been paying attention) is 'our' hunger for war. Our economy is driven by it, at least in part. The lobbyists, the contracts, media ratings fanaticism...it's really intense.
If there was ever a case for the broken window economic fallacy it would be war. The sheer cost is staggering, the cost of war alone is enough to turn folks off. Then there's the veteran costs which they rightly deserve...however it is incurred for something that is, in my opinion, plain wrong and completely unnecessary.
Then there's the opportunity cost, so many of our young men and women lost. Mental illness, severe injury, death. You see it first hand, those who come back...many have lost a part of themselves, and it tears you up inside to see it. To see what they lost, what they could have become...how hard they struggle.
Then there's the 'un-American' sentiment. The fact that while we have lost far too many...the 'enemy' has lost far too many more. We are becoming more and more understanding every day that people around the world are mostly like every other person around the world...just trying to get by, trying to make it through their lot in life. There are evil people everywhere, and there are wonderful people everywhere...race, creed, color, religion, sexuality...it makes no difference.
To turn a blind eye to that, to destroy innocent lives for the sake of routing out the non-innocent...that in my opinion, is 'un-American'.
So many candidates are ready to start another war, some are more sickly enthusiastic about it than others. There's one who vehemently opposes it, unless it is absolutely necessary. While I agree with some of his ideas, and disagree with others...the war position alone is what seals it for me. </soap-box>
i think the republicans are doing themselves a great dis-service by not finding an electable candidate. there's nobody in the group that can beat obama in 2012. i'm not a big obama fan but i see no alternative.
another reason i don't think Romney can win is because of his religion. to some fundamental christians, mormonism is a cult, not a denomination like methodists. nobody has come out and explicit said it, but i think that is why, imo, he can't get traction with the base.
miserly said: another reason i don't think Romney can win is because of his religion. to some fundamental christians, mormonism is a cult, not a denomination like methodists. nobody has come out and explicit said it, but i think that is why, imo, he can't get traction with the base Some fundamentalists in my family are like that. It may be the one factor important enough to fundamentalists to counter their belief that Obama is a Muslim and keep them from the polls on election day.
miserly said: another reason i don't think Romney can win is because of his religion. to some fundamental christians, mormonism is a cult, not a denomination like methodists. nobody has come out and explicit said it, but i think that is why, imo, he can't get traction with the base.
I happen to be one of these. Mormonism is not a denomination of christianity, it's not an offshoot of christianity, it's not a cult of christianity. Mormonism is a different religion. The message of christianity and the message of the LDS are two different messages. I would feel as comfortable voting for a mormon as I would voting for a hindu, siek, muslim, or atheist. If romney (or, for that matter, huntsman) makes it to the ballot, I will not vote for them.
soundtechie said: miserly said: another reason i don't think Romney can win is because of his religion. to some fundamental christians, mormonism is a cult, not a denomination like methodists. nobody has come out and explicit said it, but i think that is why, imo, he can't get traction with the base.
I happen to be one of these. Mormonism is not a denomination of christianity, it's not an offshoot of christianity, it's not a cult of christianity. Mormonism is a different religion. The message of christianity and the message of the LDS are two different messages. I would feel as comfortable voting for a mormon as I would voting for a hindu, siek, muslim, or atheist. If romney (or, for that matter, huntsman) makes it to the ballot, I will not vote for them.
after nominations are over, we really need to highlight this fact if mitt wins it.
FrugalFreak said: soundtechie said: miserly said: another reason i don't think Romney can win is because of his religion. to some fundamental christians, mormonism is a cult, not a denomination like methodists. nobody has come out and explicit said it, but i think that is why, imo, he can't get traction with the base.
I happen to be one of these. Mormonism is not a denomination of christianity, it's not an offshoot of christianity, it's not a cult of christianity. Mormonism is a different religion. The message of christianity and the message of the LDS are two different messages. I would feel as comfortable voting for a mormon as I would voting for a hindu, siek, muslim, or atheist. If romney (or, for that matter, huntsman) makes it to the ballot, I will not vote for them.
after nominations are over, we really need to highlight this fact if mitt wins it.
Exactly. If Mitt wins the nomination, you're going to hear the word "mormon" a lot - from Democratic PACs that hope christians won't vote for a mormon.
FrugalFreak said: I'm TERRIFIED of the Tea Party hard extremists gaining control. They run platform on fear, not common sense for all. And how do you think I felt getting a President who associates with known terrorists like Bill Ayers?
bah. We've seen plenty of "Christian" politicians lie, cheat and steal. I put little credence on their religious affiliation and more on their actions.
<--- doesn't care what religion the Prez is, as long as I am at least fully lubed before I get screwed over (It's politics, people. They don't follow the rules of the rest of us.)
JorgeBurrito said: I don't think it is that easy. It never is...
JorgeBurrito said: I don't want people going into large debt (and for the average $50K family, $10K is big debt) So set the cutoff at $5k. No biggie.
JorgeBurrito said: In addition, your plan would just discourage people from going to the Doctor I disagree. People don't go to the doctor now or get tests, because of the hassle and inconvenience.
If they're paying more for the doctor - people will vote for doctors with no/little hassle. That concern will decrease. And having to pay $90 for a market rate doctor visit - vs $30 subsidized - not a big swing. Besides, people already have to pay something for tests now - and I haven't heard many scenario's where people got worse because of cost. And don't think it will happen. (Open to testing this theory, and listening to the facts which occur.)
scrouds said: Republicans tend to fall in line better then the dems. I don't think obama has much of a chance this election no matter who they run. Have you seen Obama's approval numbers from African Americans? They're huge compared to the rest of society. I'm jealous. Either there's a ton of solidarity around people of the same skin color; or African Americans believe Obama's having a hard time then a normal person (due to his skin tone) - and are giving him a better grading curve. Either way, I'm jealous.
RS4Rings said: FrugalFreak said: I'm TERRIFIED of the Tea Party hard extremists gaining control. They run platform on fear, not common sense for all. And how do you think I felt getting a President who associates with known terrorists like Bill Ayers?
Ohh I don't know? like the Bushes association with the bin ladens?
soundtechie said: Exactly. If Mitt wins the nomination, you're going to hear the word "mormon" a lot - from Democratic PACs that hope christians won't vote for a mormon. So mormon bad but moron ok to vote for?
soundtechie said: miserly said: another reason i don't think Romney can win is because of his religion. to some fundamental christians, mormonism is a cult, not a denomination like methodists. nobody has come out and explicit said it, but i think that is why, imo, he can't get traction with the base.
I happen to be one of these. Mormonism is not a denomination of christianity, it's not an offshoot of christianity, it's not a cult of christianity. Mormonism is a different religion. The message of christianity and the message of the LDS are two different messages. I would feel as comfortable voting for a mormon as I would voting for a hindu, siek, muslim, or atheist. If romney (or, for that matter, huntsman) makes it to the ballot, I will not vote for them. I agree with your views on Mormonism, but who cares what religion he is? I will blindly vote for the guy with the R by his name whoever he is, because party trumps person, and it will be better than the alternative. The man is running for president, not high priest. I have no idea how religious he is. Much of mainstream Christianity is just a snow-job. Methodists think it's all about making our world a better place. Catholics say tradition is more important than scripture, and they worship people. One suspects many people in office are really agnostics who only attend church because you can't get elected without doing so. What religion a candidate is is meaningless. I'd vote for a wiccan if his record and platform were right, or even if he was my party's nominee, because my party's nominee is likely to not be an America hating, apologizing, big government Marxist who want to "fundamentally transform this country" one-fifth of the economy at a time.
Give me a President who is doing it for the RIGHT reasons. Not because politics is part of family business... not because they are trying to prove something... not because they have so many hands in their pockets and enjoy the power. Give me a President who doesn't really want to be President, but knows that he can make this country a better place... so, he steps up and does it for the good of our country.
If you crave the position... feel it's a birthright... want the power... you're the wrong person for the job.
Kandykornhead said: soundtechie said: miserly said: another reason i don't think Romney can win is because of his religion. to some fundamental christians, mormonism is a cult, not a denomination like methodists. nobody has come out and explicit said it, but i think that is why, imo, he can't get traction with the base.
I happen to be one of these. Mormonism is not a denomination of christianity, it's not an offshoot of christianity, it's not a cult of christianity. Mormonism is a different religion. The message of christianity and the message of the LDS are two different messages. I would feel as comfortable voting for a mormon as I would voting for a hindu, siek, muslim, or atheist. If romney (or, for that matter, huntsman) makes it to the ballot, I will not vote for them. I agree with your views on Mormonism, but who cares what religion he is? I will blindly vote for the guy with the R by his name whoever he is, because party trumps person, and it will be better than the alternative. The man is running for president, not high priest. I have no idea how religious he is. Much of mainstream Christianity is just a snow-job. Methodists think it's all about making our world a better place. Catholics say tradition is more important than scripture, and they worship people. One suspects many people in office are really agnostics who only attend church because you can't get elected without doing so. What religion a candidate is is meaningless. I'd vote for a wiccan if his record and platform were right, or even if he was my party's nominee, because my party's nominee is likely to not be an America hating, apologizing, big government Marxist who want to "fundamentally transform this country" one-fifth of the economy at a time.
Many people think that a person's choice of religion directly speaks to how sane they are. Many people think Mormon's are a bit looney because of the faith they practice and the belief system they hold. Many think Joseph Smith was just a man who wanted to validate why he should be able to have multiple wives. For those kind of people, they wouldn't vote for a Mormon because they think they're nuts.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
One-time set up
Avoid the hassle of entering your information every time you buy.
•
Instant Cash Back tracking
Since we complete the purchase, we can credit your Cash Back immediately.
•
Buy with just two clicks
One click begins checkout and another confirms your purchase.
Once set up, making a purchase with FW checkout is a breeze. FatWallet Checkout confirms the after-tax
price plus shipping and, after you confirm, completes your purchase for you.
Shopping
Earn Cash Back while you shop - just 3 simple steps.
1. Sign Up so we know who to pay! (It's FREE.)
2. Shop through FatWallet for deals from your favorite stores. Your online purchases earn Cash Back that builds in your FatWallet account.
3. Get Paid by requesting a payment via check or PayPal.
FatWallet coupons help you save more when shopping online. Use our Coupons Search to browse coupons and offers from thousands of stores, gathered into one convenient location.
Forums
As part of our FatWallet Community, you can share deals with almost a million shoppers in our forums. Forum content is generated by consumers for consumers. Share deals, money-saving tips, and more. It's FREE, fun, and addicting.
Support
Our customer experience team is here around the clock - real people ready to assist.
