2016 Republican Platform and Convention

[MarAzul]

That Obama has taken away future progressives' allowance

I could only hope they saw it that way.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh, ok. Guess your gibberish proves your point, whatever it was. Let's all have the billion type economy, and the US can't possibly issue any more debt. Problem solved.

barfo

Grow the economy, stupid.

Then you can lower taxes AND spend more.

Maybe that economics for dummies book will help you understand economic theory. It seems to be gibberish to you, indeed.

 

[barfo]

Grow the economy, stupid.

Not my job. If you want me to believe Trump is going to do that, you'll need to explain how, exactly. He certainly hasn't.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Not my job. If you want me to believe Trump is going to do that, you'll need to explain how, exactly. He certainly hasn't.

barfo

Tax rate cuts do grow the economy. That's why your guy didn't raise them for several years after he took office, and only then he only raised them against the job creators.

He's proposed tariffs on Chinese imports, which would be a boost for american goods at home.

Economics for dummies. Read it.

 

[MarAzul]

Not my job. If you want me to believe Trump is going to do that, you'll need to explain how, exactly. He certainly hasn't.
barfo

Sure he has!

 

[riverman]

I had to laugh at CNN last night. Immediately after the speech, they had their marching orders from the Clinton campaign and the DNC to use the words "dark" to describe the speech. Then they went to a room full of convention watchers, undecided voters, and half raised their hands when asked if they were more likely to vote Trump. None of them said the speech was "dark," more that he didn't give specifics about how he was going to accomplish some of his promises. Then they reported on their on instant poll:

"Dark."

They acted like they were in shock that the people who vote didn't share their view that the speech was "dark." And this morning, the DNC talking heads they have on are doubling down on the "dark" thing.

EDIT: unlike 2012, the CNN instant poll is not available on their WWW site that I can find.

I imagine it's difficult to give a dark speech when your head is glowing orange

 

[riverman]

And yet, you support Trump, who will increase the debt far faster than Obama or Bush. At least according to pretty much every economist, if you want to believe them.

barfo

Didn't you hear? Mexico will be paying for all of this!

 

[MARIS61]

 

[MARIS61]

And yet, you support Trump, who will increase the debt far faster than Obama or Bush. At least according to pretty much every economist, if you want to believe them.

barfo

Whom are you quoting?

I've seen no credible, unbiased analysis of Trump's policies and their costs versus their benefits.

 

[blue32]

Whom are you quoting?

I've seen no credible, unbiased analysis of Trump's policies and their costs versus their benefits.

Barfo doesn't live in this universe. pay no attention to the poster.

 

[LSTYSON]

Michelle Obama said at the democratic national convention that you should not let anyone tell you this country isn't great, but earlier in her husband's term as president, she gave a speech talking about how she herself was not proud of her country, but now all of a sudden she wants to talk about how great it is. That is a joke. All she, her husband, the Clintons, & all the other democrats are doing, is just trying to play the race card to try to win this election for the democrats. They couldn't care less about the American people or the long term consequences of their actions on this country. It is all about winning this election at any cost as long as a democrat wins. You know that they were just sitting around the Whitehouse saying, how can we possibly get people to vote for this lying, white, rich, over-privileged, female criminal as the next president? Well a lot of women will vote for her just because she is a woman. True, but that might not be enough to win the election. We need a back-up plan. We need to figure out how to get the black people to vote for her like they did with Obama. I know we can say Trump is racist, but Trump hasn't said anything racist against black people. I know but all you have to do is say it & without any real proof, they will still believe it. Then blacks will vote for her, & whites won't speak-up against her or for Trump because they too will be labeled a racist. So yes that will work. Let's turn this into a black /white thing. But Hillary isn't black & Trump isn't racist. That doesn't really matter, all you have to do is say Trump is racist & Hillary loves the black community. Even if it is not true, don't worry about the truth. Trust me this will totally work. They will eat this racism crap up like it is candy.

 

[crandc]

That is not what Michelle Obama said "earlier in her husband's term". You can read what she says. You have the quote wrong and the time wrong. But who cares about facts if you can insult her?

Good to know Lstyson thinks "black people" are too stupid to be able to make intelligent decisions on voting. So apparently are women.

Thank you for mansplaining/whitesplaining to us dumb people who had the misfortune to not be white and male. And you say Hillary Clinton is playing the "race card"????

 

[Denny Crane]

The middle class shrank under Obama and democrats.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Whom are you quoting?

I've seen no credible, unbiased analysis of Trump's policies and their costs versus their benefits.

• Here's the Tax Policy Center's analysis of his tax proposals: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan/full
• Here's a fairly thorough, unvarnished analysis of his proposal to build that moronic wall: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html
• Then let's consider his idiotic comment about restructuring the national debt or printing money to pay for it. If the Brexit vote shows anything it's not unreasonable to think overnight you'd see the stock market crash in a way we haven't seen since the 1920s (Liberal rag "The National Review") http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435226/trump-national-debt

EDIT: Vote Johnson!

 

[e_blazer]

• Here's the Tax Policy Center's analysis of his tax proposals: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan/full
• Here's a fairly thorough, unvarnished analysis of his proposal to build that moronic wall: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html
• Then let's consider his idiotic comment about defaulting on the national debt. If the Brexit vote shows anything it's not unreasonable to think overnight you'd see the stock market crash in a way we haven't seen since the 1920s (Liberal rag "The National Review") http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435226/trump-national-debt

EDIT: Vote Johnson!

Sorry, but that second link is clearly biased. The last part should read, "this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-mexico." Jeez, do they not listen to Trump's rhetoric?

 

[Denny Crane]

• Here's the Tax Policy Center's analysis of his tax proposals: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan/full
• Here's a fairly thorough, unvarnished analysis of his proposal to build that moronic wall: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html
• Then let's consider his idiotic comment about restructuring the national debt or printing money to pay for it. If the Brexit vote shows anything it's not unreasonable to think overnight you'd see the stock market crash in a way we haven't seen since the 1920s (Liberal rag "The National Review") http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435226/trump-national-debt

EDIT: Vote Johnson!

(From the 1st link)

CONCLUSIONS

Mr. Trump’s tax reform plan would boost incentives to work, save, and invest, and has the potential to simplify the tax code. By lowering marginal tax rates and further limiting or repealing many tax expenditures, it would reduce the incentives and opportunities to engage in some forms of wasteful tax avoidance. However,the plan could increase incentives for workers to characterize themselves as independent contractors, to take advantage of the lower tax rate on business income, unless new rules were introduced to prevent this. The proposal would cut taxes on household s at every income level, but much more as a share of income at the top. The fundamental concern the plan poses is that, barring extraordinarily large cuts in government spending or future tax increases, it would yield persistently large, and likely unsustainable, budget deficits.

(Report is biased source)

I'm good with shrinking the government and spending, but I don't think republicans and democrats have the will to do the right thing.

Vote Johnson.

 

[Nikolokolus]

How is the TPC biased exactly? I've always sort of seen them as a middle-road think tank (founded by Reagan, Bush and Clinton tax and budget advisors) as for the conclusions you highlighted, while that is a laudable goal, there's would need to be so many austerity measures built-in to Trump's budget that you'd probably see the U.S. economy go into a tailspin to avoid massive budget deficits.

I'm all for reducing spending over time and I think our tax code needs a major revision, but Trump's stated goals seem to run counter to reducing federal spending.

 

[blue32]

(From the 1st link)

CONCLUSIONS

Mr. Trump’s tax reform plan would boost incentives to work, save, and invest, and has the potential to simplify the tax code. By lowering marginal tax rates and further limiting or repealing many tax expenditures, it would reduce the incentives and opportunities to engage in some forms of wasteful tax avoidance. However,the plan could increase incentives for workers to characterize themselves as independent contractors, to take advantage of the lower tax rate on business income, unless new rules were introduced to prevent this. The proposal would cut taxes on household s at every income level, but much more as a share of income at the top. The fundamental concern the plan poses is that, barring extraordinarily large cuts in government spending or future tax increases, it would yield persistently large, and likely unsustainable, budget deficits.

(Report is biased source)

I'm good with shrinking the government and spending, but I don't think republicans and democrats have the will to do the right thing.

Vote Johnson.

"The Trump plan would require unprecedented spending cuts to avoid adding to the federal debt. We estimate that the plan would reduce revenues by $1.1trillion in 2025 (before considering macroeconomic effects). "


The conclusion is great. I am not sure why anyone wouldn't want that. Government needs to get out of Americans wallets.

The fiscal conservative in me loves this. If he pulls this off I would be happy. Federal spending cuts are sorely needed.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Unfortunately, the place where major federal spending cuts need to take place is the military. But does anyone realistically see that happening?? If spending cuts happen, it will be from areas that actually benefit the American populace. The rich will just get richer......

 

[Denny Crane]

How is the TPC biased exactly? I've always sort of seen them as a middle-road think tank (founded by Reagan, Bush and Clinton tax and budget advisors) as for the conclusions you highlighted, while that is a laudable goal, there's would need to be so many austerity measures built-in to Trump's budget that you'd probably see the U.S. economy go into a tailspin to avoid massive budget deficits.

I'm all for reducing spending over time and I think our tax code needs a major revision, but Trump's stated goals seem to run counter to reducing federal spending.

Urban Institute and Brookings Institution are left wing propaganda outfits (think tanks).

 

[Denny Crane]

How is the TPC biased exactly? I've always sort of seen them as a middle-road think tank (founded by Reagan, Bush and Clinton tax and budget advisors) as for the conclusions you highlighted, while that is a laudable goal, there's would need to be so many austerity measures built-in to Trump's budget that you'd probably see the U.S. economy go into a tailspin to avoid massive budget deficits.

I'm all for reducing spending over time and I think our tax code needs a major revision, but Trump's stated goals seem to run counter to reducing federal spending.

What's more tax revenue?

a) 5% of $5M
b) 10% of $2M

The answer is a), and the idea is to grow the economy. The $M figures represent a GDP of the nation. The % a above illustrates how the government taxes a % of GDP. The numbers are contrived, sure. I don't suggest Trump's GDP will be 2.5x Obama's, but it will be significantly higher. Anyone who's not a Keynesian would have a higher GDP.

If Trump allows $2T+ of overseas money to be repatriated, that's a massive amount of money for corporations to invest. Something left wing demagogues do not want to see happen for some reason (fair share bullshit).

 

[Denny Crane]

Unfortunately, the place where major federal spending cuts need to take place is the military. But does anyone realistically see that happening?? If spending cuts happen, it will be from areas that actually benefit the American populace. The rich will just get richer......

If we don't grow revenues significantly and keep interest rates really low, there's not going to be any money to pay for much.



That's for just 9 months of interest on Obama's debt. At near zero interest rates. The amount of interest payments is ~6% of the federal budget. And that money goes to... those who can afford to buy the government bonds (the rich).

If the fed doubles interest rates to a more normal 5%, the debt payments would balloon to as much as 25% of the budget.

Hiliar is the most qualified person in history to assure this happens.

Think about all the lefty programs we could blow that money on instead of interest payments.

I don't think it's right at all to make the taxpayer pay for reckless spending. Something has to change.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

I agree 100%. But in my version of reality, the vast majority of reckless spending is related to the military. And is where a large hunk of "Obama's" debt (thanks to GW Bush) started....Bush started with a surplus and turned it all to shit with bogus wars and handouts to his cronies....how do you guys ignore this crap while bending Obama over a post for much more minor sins???? The bottom line is that one is truly just a bad as the other. Our opinions depend on how we prefer our pain....

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I agree 100%. But in my version of reality, the vast majority of reckless spending is related to the military. And is where a large hunk of "Obama's" debt (thanks to GW Bush) started....Bush started with a surplus and turned it all to shit with bogus wars and handouts to his cronies....how do you guys ignore this crap while bending Obama over a post for much more minor sins???? The bottom line is that one is truly just a bad as the other. Our opinions depend on how we prefer our pain....

Even the most liberal estimates of the "true cost" of the Iraq-Afghanistan wars peg it at $6 trillion--$2T in direct costs, and an additional $4T in indirect costs over the next 30 years. If the current national debt is over $19T, isn't it a bit disingenuous to blame it all on military spending if that would only account for 10% of it at this point?

 

[Denny Crane]

I agree 100%. But in my version of reality, the vast majority of reckless spending is related to the military. And is where a large hunk of "Obama's" debt (thanks to GW Bush) started....Bush started with a surplus and turned it all to shit with bogus wars and handouts to his cronies....how do you guys ignore this crap while bending Obama over a post for much more minor sins???? The bottom line is that one is truly just a bad as the other. Our opinions depend on how we prefer our pain....

I'm fine with cutting the military and staying out of other nations and their business. However, it is naive to think that cutting it to zero would prevent the debt from eating up the tax revenues to the point where there's a huge crush on the rest of spending. That means SS, medicare, roads, NASA, ... EVERYTHING.

That is why the spending was reckless. Though it is even moreso when you realize we didn't get anything in return for the spending.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

I agree 100%. But in my version of reality, the vast majority of reckless spending is related to the military. And is where a large hunk of "Obama's" debt (thanks to GW Bush) started....Bush started with a surplus and turned it all to shit with bogus wars and handouts to his cronies....how do you guys ignore this crap while bending Obama over a post for much more minor sins???? The bottom line is that one is truly just a bad as the other. Our opinions depend on how we prefer our pain....

I'm fine with cutting the military and staying out of other nations and their business. However, it is naive to think that cutting it to zero would prevent the debt from eating up the tax revenues to the point where there's a huge crush on the rest of spending. That means SS, medicare, roads, NASA, ... EVERYTHING.

That is why the spending was reckless. Though it is even moreso when you realize we didn't get anything in return for the spending.

I'm not saying ALL the debt is military related nor am I saying to cut military spending to zero. I'm just saying a very large part of "Obama's" debt is because he paying for debts Bush and Cheney rang up with stupid actions. Manipulate or rationalize the figures any way you want, the truth remains the same.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not saying ALL the debt is military related nor am I saying to cut military spending to zero. I'm just saying a very large part of "Obama's" debt is because he paying for debts Bush and Cheney rang up with stupid actions. Manipulate or rationalize the figures any way you want, the truth remains the same.

I disagree, and know that this war spending claim is a talking point.

Bush inherited a $254B "surplus" from Clinton, right? The wars didn't cost $254B/year on top of military spending. It cost maybe half that. The tax cuts was a way of returning to the taxpayer the money they overpaid (surplus does mean the government TOOK too much, more than it needed).

Obama recklessly spent ~$10T above and beyond those costs.

 

[barfo]

I disagree, and know that this war spending claim is a talking point.

Bush inherited a $254B "surplus" from Clinton, right? The wars didn't cost $254B/year on top of military spending. It cost maybe half that. The tax cuts was a way of returning to the taxpayer the money they overpaid (surplus does mean the government TOOK too much, more than it needed).

Only if you have no intention of ever paying down the debt.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Only if you have no intention of ever paying down the debt.

barfo

It was already paid down.

You didn't read the economics for dummies book yet, I take it.

 

[barfo]

It was already paid down.

Really, the debt went to zero? I didn't hear about that.

Neither did anyone else.

barfo