Page 7 of 8 [ 128 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Of the following, who would you support for the nomination?
Newt Gingrich 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Sarah Palin 7%  7%  [ 2 ]
Herman Cain 15%  15%  [ 4 ]
Mitt Romney 19%  19%  [ 5 ]
Tim Pawlenty 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Michelle Bachman 7%  7%  [ 2 ]
Rick Santorum 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Ron Paul 44%  44%  [ 12 ]
Total votes : 27

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

15 Jun 2011, 10:01 am

Right. And it's not literal jobs, it's an abstracted estimate of a reduction in man hours. One element of that is the very sick reducing their workload to seek treatment. Another is people not having to work x hours to get health insurance access.

She's a politician saying stupid things for the sheep.



parrow
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 152

15 Jun 2011, 10:03 am

pandabear wrote:
:roll: Why doesn't this wench just dye her hair blonde? :roll:


Name-calling, stereotypes, and bigotry. You'd think we could get past these things on an aspie board.



parrow
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 152

15 Jun 2011, 10:16 am

Orwell wrote:
. Those two stances alone make him unacceptable to 80+% of Americans ... He has no chance in hell.

It's very easy to pick two issues out for any politician then use those as examples that the politician is out of touch with the public. Lets try it. Most Americans support a late term abortion ban, Obama does not. A majority of Americans support the repeal of Obamacare, Obama does not. Those two stances alone make him unacceptable to 80+% of Americans ... He has no chance in hell .... But wait, the logic does not fit, Obama does have a good chance to win.

Cherry picking is a logical fallacy



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

15 Jun 2011, 10:29 am

parrow wrote:
Orwell wrote:
. Those two stances alone make him unacceptable to 80+% of Americans ... He has no chance in hell.

It's very easy to pick two issues out for any politician then use those as examples that the politician is out of touch with the public. Lets try it. Most Americans support a late term abortion ban, Obama does not. A majority of Americans support the repeal of Obamacare, Obama does not. Those two stances alone make him unacceptable to 80+% of Americans ... He has no chance in hell .... But wait, the logic does not fit, Obama does have a good chance to win.

Cherry picking is a logical fallacy

You are incorrect. Social Security and Medicare routinely rate as among the highest priorities of the American voters in polls. Opposition to cuts in those programs is much more unanimous, and much more intense, than support for late-term abortion bans or repealing PPACA. Proposing to eliminate the two most popular government programs in American history is a recipe for destroying your chances at election. Americans have no interest in cutting Social Security, not even to balance the budget.

Additionally, you clipped out the middle portion of my post listing other factors that make Paul unpalatable to the general electorate. And further, my figure of 80+% was not made up. Yours was.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

15 Jun 2011, 10:53 am

parrow wrote:
Most Americans support a late term abortion ban, Obama does not.

Abortion didn't come up in the last debate, did it?

Quote:
A majority of Americans support the repeal of Obamacare,

This is false.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

15 Jun 2011, 10:55 am

parrow wrote:
pandabear wrote:
:roll: Why doesn't this wench just dye her hair blonde? :roll:


Name-calling, stereotypes, and bigotry. You'd think we could get past these things on an aspie board.


You have to admit, she does fit the stereotype of the dumb blonde. All she needs is blonde hair.



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

15 Jun 2011, 11:23 am

psychohist wrote:


pandabear wrote:
Quote:
You have to invite capital. The way you get capital into a country, you have to have a strong currency, not a weak currency. Today it's a deliberate job of the Federal Reserve to weaken the currency. We should invite capital back.

It is true that ours is the world's reserve currency, and that our politicians have taken full advantage of that situation. However, he has it backwards. A weak currency would invite capital and create jobs. A strong currency encourages imports.

While a strong currency encourages imports, a weak currency does not necessarily invite capital and create jobs. A currency that is weak because of high inflation relative to nominal growth rates discourages capital. What attracts capital is after tax real returns - nominal growth minus taxes minus inflation. A weak currency only plays into it if the currency is also expected to get stronger, contributing to nominal growth of the asset; if the currency is stable, weakness or strength makes no difference.

Quote:
Quote:
First thing is, we have trillions of dollars, at least over a trillion dollars of U.S. money made overseas, but it stays over there because if you bring it home, they get taxed.

Of course, other countries are using our currency, especially for international trade. Various countries may tax the transactions as they wish. Using the dollars for transactions within the USA may also result in taxes.

You don't understand what he's getting at here. He's not talking about taxes on transactions. He's talking about taxes on corporate income - which is to say, on return on capital.

Corporate income that is earned overseas - for example in much of Europe - is typically taxed at a lower rate than corporate income earned in the U.S. In addition, taxes on dividends and capital gains are often lower than in the U.S. That means the investor gets to keep more of the return on his investment. That's an incentive to invest overseas rather than in the U.S., and keeps the capital that's needed for development of new manufacturing jobs outside the U.S.

Ron Paul is absolutely correct in what he says here. I don't necessarily agree with the policy he advocates - I don't place the same importance on manufacturing as he does, and I worry more about the lost revenue if you get rid of corporate income taxes - but his logic is correct.

Granted if he was unable to explain it in a way you could understand, probably not a lot of the audience understood it either. To me, Gingrich was the guy who truly had economics knowledge at his fingertips. Pity he doesn't know how to run a campaign.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

15 Jun 2011, 11:35 am

psychohist wrote:
While a strong currency encourages imports, a weak currency does not necessarily invite capital and create jobs. A currency that is weak because of high inflation relative to nominal growth rates discourages capital. What attracts capital is after tax real returns - nominal growth minus taxes minus inflation. A weak currency only plays into it if the currency is also expected to get stronger, contributing to nominal growth of the asset; if the currency is stable, weakness or strength makes no difference.

We have the most stable currency in the world. So, you're saying that Mr. Paul's assertion that the Federal Reserve's efforts to weaken the currency (if true) are irrelevant.


Quote:
You don't understand what he's getting at here. He's not talking about taxes on transactions. He's talking about taxes on corporate income - which is to say, on return on capital.

Corporate income that is earned overseas - for example in much of Europe - is typically taxed at a lower rate than corporate income earned in the U.S. In addition, taxes on dividends and capital gains are often lower than in the U.S. That means the investor gets to keep more of the return on his investment. That's an incentive to invest overseas rather than in the U.S., and keeps the capital that's needed for development of new manufacturing jobs outside the U.S.

Ron Paul is absolutely correct in what he says here. I don't necessarily agree with the policy he advocates - I don't place the same importance on manufacturing as he does, and I worry more about the lost revenue if you get rid of corporate income taxes - but his logic is correct.

Granted if he was unable to explain it in a way you could understand, probably not a lot of the audience understood it either. To me, Gingrich was the guy who truly had economics knowledge at his fingertips. Pity he doesn't know how to run a campaign.


But, we've been doing nothing but cut taxes for decades. Some big corporations make plenty of profit, but pay no taxes. Others (especially in agriculture) receive huge fortunes in subsidies. How can Europe still have lower taxes than we do? Republicans typically view Europe as an evil place, with high taxes and a lot of "liberality."



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

15 Jun 2011, 11:48 am

pandabear wrote:
We have the most stable currency in the world. So, you're saying that Mr. Paul's assertion that the Federal Reserve's efforts to weaken the currency (if true) are irrelevant.

To the extent that the dollar weakens, it's not stable - it's declining in value. If the dollar starts out strong, it has to be kept strong to be stable. It's peripherally relevant to Ron Paul's point.

Quote:
But, we've been doing nothing but cut taxes for decades. Some big corporations make plenty of profit, but pay no taxes. Others (especially in agriculture) receive huge fortunes in subsidies. How can Europe still have lower taxes than we do? Republicans typically view Europe as an evil place, with high taxes and a lot of "liberality."

Believe it or not, there are different kinds of taxes, with different kinds of effects. This seems to be part of what you're missing here.

I also don't see how subsidies enter the equation. Ron Paul doesn't advocate subsidies; quite the opposite. He's not even advocating cutting all taxes. He's only advocating cutting one specific kind of tax.

And of course, Ron Paul is far from a typical Republican, let alone your caricature of a typical Republican.



Jet102fm
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 94

15 Jun 2011, 2:43 pm

I'd do my homework first. And, I don't think Europe is evil, because I am a republican-leaning independent. I wish to visit there someday.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

15 Jun 2011, 4:06 pm

psychohist wrote:
He's only advocating cutting one specific kind of tax.

What specific kind of tax does he advocate cutting?

Quote:
And of course, Ron Paul is far from a typical Republican, let alone your caricature of a typical Republican.

Granted.



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

15 Jun 2011, 6:34 pm

pandabear wrote:
psychohist wrote:
He's only advocating cutting one specific kind of tax.

What specific kind of tax does he advocate cutting?

In the context of repatriation of capital, he's talking about corporate income tax rates.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

15 Jun 2011, 7:24 pm

psychohist wrote:
pandabear wrote:
psychohist wrote:
He's only advocating cutting one specific kind of tax.

What specific kind of tax does he advocate cutting?

In the context of repatriation of capital, he's talking about corporate income tax rates.


Well, we do have European firms assembling cars in the USA (Mercedes Benz and BMW). So, maybe cutting corporate income taxes wouldn't be as helpful as he thinks.

A lot of manufacturing businesses left the USA in search of cheaper labour costs. Reducing corporate income taxes isn't going to bring those jobs back.



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

15 Jun 2011, 8:23 pm

pandabear wrote:
Well, we do have European firms assembling cars in the USA (Mercedes Benz and BMW). So, maybe cutting corporate income taxes wouldn't be as helpful as he thinks.

A lot of manufacturing businesses left the USA in search of cheaper labour costs. Reducing corporate income taxes isn't going to bring those jobs back.

Jobs that left for inexpensive, unskilled, $1/hr labor in Indonesia, yes, we're not going to get those back. Jobs in precision manufacturing, like the engines in those automobiles, and the robots on the assembly lines? We'd have a chance at getting that stuff.

That said, again, while Ron Paul's logic is sound here, I don't necessarily agree with his proposed policy. There's a limit to global demand for manufacturing. I'd personally rather look at ways to improve the employment picture in the service economy.



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

16 Jun 2011, 10:59 am

For the record, here's a poll from just before the New Hampshire debate. It will be interesting to see how the debate changed things.

WSJ/NBC poll wrote:
Among all poll respondents, 45% said they would probably vote to re-elect Mr. Obama, while 40% said they would choose a Republican. Against specific GOP contenders, the president's lead widened. Mr. Obama leads Mr. Romney 49% to 43%; he topped Mr. Pawlenty 50% to 37%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... _Video_Top



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

16 Jun 2011, 3:04 pm

psychohist wrote:
For the record, here's a poll from just before the New Hampshire debate. It will be interesting to see how the debate changed things.

WSJ/NBC poll wrote:
Among all poll respondents, 45% said they would probably vote to re-elect Mr. Obama, while 40% said they would choose a Republican. Against specific GOP contenders, the president's lead widened. Mr. Obama leads Mr. Romney 49% to 43%; he topped Mr. Pawlenty 50% to 37%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... _Video_Top


so for now Mitt is the best bet but not a good bet.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/