|
Title: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Indy Texas on April 22, 2012, 11:10:07 PM http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/huntsman-gaslights-gop-compares-the-party-to-communist-121283.html
Huntsman compared the GOP to China's communist party, failed to let words escape his mouth about his support for Mitt Romney (nodding instead that he still backs him) and echoed the Democratic talking point that Ronald Reagan would "likely not" get elected in the current, hard-right Republican party. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: BigSkyBob on April 22, 2012, 11:22:32 PM http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/huntsman-gaslights-gop-compares-the-party-to-communist-121283.html Huntsman compared the GOP to China's communist party, failed to let words escape his mouth about his support for Mitt Romney (nodding instead that he still backs him) and echoed the Democratic talking point that Ronald Reagan would "likely not" get elected in the current, hard-right Republican party. What a joke! If Bush I, Dole, Bush II, and McCain were able to obtain the GOP nomination, how could it be plausibly be claimed that Reagan was too far to the left for the GOP? The reality is that the establishment has twisted the process to favor moderate candidates. It is candidates like Reagan that aren't welcome in the modern GOP. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on April 22, 2012, 11:32:03 PM Well- I guess he doesn't want to run in 2016!
Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: mondale84 on April 22, 2012, 11:44:21 PM Boss...
Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on April 22, 2012, 11:46:21 PM So basically he's Chuck Hagel? Another right-wing Republican who says some sane things sometimes.
Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 23, 2012, 01:26:02 AM Hunstman is talking nonsense. China's Communist Party is much more sane than modern GOP.
Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Cory on April 23, 2012, 02:34:05 AM Hunstman is talking nonsense. China's Communist Party is much more sane than modern GOP. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: LastVoter on April 23, 2012, 02:47:10 AM Hunstman is talking nonsense. China's Communist Party is much more sane than modern GOP & Democrats. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Cory on April 23, 2012, 04:17:12 AM Probably true as well. Yeah the Chinese leadership seems to be intellectually leagues and bounds above the USA these days. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Lambsbread on April 23, 2012, 05:03:34 AM LOL
Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: King on April 23, 2012, 11:00:40 AM Considering the modern bridge is steel and concrete, Huntsman's match will be about as effective as his Presidential campaign.
Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: fezzyfestoon on April 23, 2012, 11:35:59 AM Good
Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Simfan34 on April 23, 2012, 06:49:23 PM Considering the modern bridge is steel and concrete, Huntsman's match will be about as effective as his Presidential campaign. He's completely right, but not original, we all know the modern GOP is mad and really is facing an indefinite period of unelectability. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: greenforest32 on April 23, 2012, 06:57:56 PM Huntsman is so brave.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us Quote Alan Grayson But what about that Jon Huntsman guy? This week three different people told me, quite independently of each other, how sorry they were that Governor Huntsman never gained any traction in the Republican Presidential Primary. I told them that they should get over it. Huntsman wasn’t any better. It somehow counts as an act of courage for Huntsman to have tweeted: “I believe in evolution.” Of course, it would have been more courageous if Huntsman had said that to a Tea Party audience, and then they tore him limb from limb, thereby disproving the theory of evolution right before our eyes. Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths. The myths that are killing us. Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head: (1) The Government can’t create jobs. (Tell that to FDR, who created four million jobs in three months.) (2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit. (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?) (3) A fetus is a baby. (4) The poor have too much money. (5) Cutting the federal deficit will end the recession. (6) The rich are incentivized by tax cuts, while the poor are incentivized by lower wages, no benefits, an end to the minimum wage, and unemployment. (7) An unwanted child is God’s will. (8 ) Everyone who wants health insurance has it. (9) The problem with education is the teachers. (10) The “free market” satisfies every human need. (11) There is no discrimination in America anymore. (12) The distribution of wealth and income are irrelevant. I don’t remember Jon Huntsman disputing any of these myths. And these are the ones that do the real damage. Show me a candidate who is willing to take on these myths, and I’ll pay more attention. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Simfan34 on April 23, 2012, 07:23:16 PM Nonsense.
Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: LastVoter on April 23, 2012, 08:21:00 PM How is the GOP more Communistic than the Democratic party? The GOP supports free markets and economic freedom, the Democrats support corrupt unions and affirmative action. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 23, 2012, 09:00:39 PM Huntsman is so brave. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us Quote Alan Grayson Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths. The myths that are killing us. Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head: (2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit. (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?) The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue. The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue. Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Simfan34 on April 23, 2012, 09:04:49 PM How is the GOP more Communistic than the Democratic party? The GOP supports free markets and economic freedom, the Democrats support corrupt unions and affirmative action. That's not what he's talking about. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Bacon King on April 24, 2012, 03:18:03 AM Huntsman is so brave. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us Quote Alan Grayson Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths. The myths that are killing us. Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head: (2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit. (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?) The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue. The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue. Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers. It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Simfan34 on April 24, 2012, 06:14:48 AM Huntsman is so brave. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us Quote Alan Grayson Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths. The myths that are killing us. Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head: (2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit. (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?) The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue. The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue. Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers. It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve. As in to say taxes are still too high? Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Bacon King on April 24, 2012, 01:28:10 PM Huntsman is so brave. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us Quote Alan Grayson Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths. The myths that are killing us. Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head: (2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit. (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?) The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue. The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue. Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers. It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve. As in to say taxes are still too high? Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Rooney on April 24, 2012, 01:32:14 PM Huntsman represents the very worst of the Republican Party: a wealthy whiny prick who won't stop complaining about how conservative the party is. Reagan would probably be nominated now because he could mouth reactionary talking points, talked up Biblical prophecy and did not like gays. That is all you need to be the Republican nominee for President.
The Republican Party is conservative and they do not try to hide it. Huntsman is just an asshole who I hope is never allowed into public office again. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Politico on April 24, 2012, 09:25:41 PM Huntsman is so brave. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us Quote Alan Grayson Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths. The myths that are killing us. Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head: (2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit. (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?) The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue. The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue. Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers. It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve. As in to say taxes are still too high? Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue. The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., taxpayers) while still collecting enough tax revenue to maintain a government committed to national defense, law/order, basic infrastructure, and fulfilling promised obligations (e.g., Social Security/Medicare and long-term fiscal stability). The endgame is economic freedom, personal liberty, and a fiscally responsible, minimalist government. There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on April 24, 2012, 09:27:31 PM Huntsman is so brave. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us Quote Alan Grayson Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths. The myths that are killing us. Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head: (2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit. (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?) The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue. The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue. Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers. It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve. As in to say taxes are still too high? Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue. The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., taxpayers) while maintaining a government committed to national defense, law/order, basic infrastructure, and promised obligations (e.g., Social Security/Medicare and long-term fiscal stability). There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives. Of course having high middle class taxes or borrowing money to pay for tax cuts for the rich is perfectly OK. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Politico on April 24, 2012, 09:33:24 PM Huntsman is so brave. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us Quote Alan Grayson Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths. The myths that are killing us. Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head: (2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit. (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?) The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue. The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue. Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers. It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve. As in to say taxes are still too high? Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue. The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., taxpayers) while maintaining a government committed to national defense, law/order, basic infrastructure, and promised obligations (e.g., Social Security/Medicare and long-term fiscal stability). There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives. Of course having high middle class taxes or borrowing money to pay for tax cuts for the rich is perfectly OK. Romney is going to cut taxes for every tax bracket by 20%, right across-the-board, so if you feel the middle class is being taxed too much right now you can blame Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress. We are going to stop the debilitating game of borrowing $1+ trillion/annually and kicking the can down the road, onto the next president, once Mitt Romney is in the White House. Fiscal responsibility at the federal level will be restored via spending cuts and transfers to the states. Too bad if California and Illinois go bankrupt. Democrats in California and Illinois will have nobody to blame but themselves. Some people will vote with their feet. Other people will vote their Democrat politicians out of power in California and Illinois. Then the Romney Administration will help both states, and state Republicans will restore responsibility to these out-of-control liberal bastions. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on April 24, 2012, 09:58:38 PM Huntsman is so brave. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us Quote Alan Grayson Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths. The myths that are killing us. Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head: (2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit. (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?) The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue. The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue. Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers. It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve. As in to say taxes are still too high? Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue. The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., taxpayers) while maintaining a government committed to national defense, law/order, basic infrastructure, and promised obligations (e.g., Social Security/Medicare and long-term fiscal stability). There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives. Of course having high middle class taxes or borrowing money to pay for tax cuts for the rich is perfectly OK. Romney is going to cut taxes for every tax bracket by 20%, right across-the-board, so if you feel the middle class is being taxed too much right now you can blame Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress. We are going to stop the debilitating game of borrowing $1+ trillion/annually and kicking the can down the road, onto the next president, once Mitt Romney is in the White House. Fiscal responsibility at the federal level will be restored via spending cuts and transfers to the states. Too bad if California and Illinois go bankrupt. Democrats in California and Illinois will have nobody to blame but themselves. Some people will vote with their feet. Other people will vote their Democrat politicians out of power in California and Illinois. Then the Romney Administration will help both states, and state Republicans will restore responsibility to these out-of-control liberal bastions. Isn't passing the buck to the states basically the same as kicking the can down the road? That's not going to help the states. Cutting taxes while increasing military spending isn't a recipe for helping deficits. Bush was supposed to be some sort of fiscal conservative MBA and he turned surpluses into huge deficits. OK, I'll blame myself for having a Republican President for most of the last decade and Propositions like Prop. 13 that restrict California's ability to balance a budget. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Politico on April 24, 2012, 10:18:10 PM Huntsman is so brave. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us Quote Alan Grayson Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths. The myths that are killing us. Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head: (2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit. (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?) The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue. The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue. Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers. It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve. As in to say taxes are still too high? Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue. The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., taxpayers) while maintaining a government committed to national defense, law/order, basic infrastructure, and promised obligations (e.g., Social Security/Medicare and long-term fiscal stability). There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives. Of course having high middle class taxes or borrowing money to pay for tax cuts for the rich is perfectly OK. Romney is going to cut taxes for every tax bracket by 20%, right across-the-board, so if you feel the middle class is being taxed too much right now you can blame Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress. We are going to stop the debilitating game of borrowing $1+ trillion/annually and kicking the can down the road, onto the next president, once Mitt Romney is in the White House. Fiscal responsibility at the federal level will be restored via spending cuts and transfers to the states. Too bad if California and Illinois go bankrupt. Democrats in California and Illinois will have nobody to blame but themselves. Some people will vote with their feet. Other people will vote their Democrat politicians out of power in California and Illinois. Then the Romney Administration will help both states, and state Republicans will restore responsibility to these out-of-control liberal bastions. Isn't passing the buck to the states basically the same as kicking the can down the road? Absolutely not. With the exception of Vermont, every state needs to balance its budget each year. In other words, the elected representatives of states will decide what is worth paying for and what is not. People will vote with their feet. It is the only fair way to find out what people are willing to pay for, and what they are not willing to pay for. Quote Cutting taxes while increasing military spending isn't a recipe for helping deficits. Sure, if we were not coupling this with massive spending cuts elsewhere and transfers to the states. And the increases in military spending may not even happen. It will likely be a shifting of resources within the military so we have more of an emphasis upon research & development, where we can create lots of positive spillover effects for the economy in the medium/long-run (e.g., think of how the Internet, GPS technology, touch-screen technology, etc., all of which began with the military, have transformed our lives/economy). Quote Bush was supposed to be some sort of fiscal conservative MBA and he turned surpluses into huge deficits. Bush is not on the ballot in 2012. Romney is a very different leader from Bush. This election is about Obama, not Bush. Quote OK, I'll blame myself for having a Republican President for most of the last decade and Propositions like Prop. 13 that restrict California's ability to balance a budget. California does not know how to be fiscally responsible, and its day of reckoning will come sooner or later. Their way of doing things is, ironically, unsustainable. We might as well expedite the bankruptcy via state transfers. Then the state can be repaired by responsible Republicans, like the type you will find in many areas of Orange County. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Chaddyr23 on April 24, 2012, 10:50:46 PM Huntsman basically says he wasn't man enough to agree to 10:1 cuts and basically says yeah Romney will be better?! Sorry, but I'm going to call him for what he is: a chicken. He wasn't man enough to hold his own and defend the positions he believed in. Him and Charlie Crist should hang out together
Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: The Mikado on April 25, 2012, 12:55:17 AM Huntsman is so brave. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us Quote Alan Grayson Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths. The myths that are killing us. Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head: (2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit. (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?) The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue. The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue. Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers. It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve. As in to say taxes are still too high? Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue. At the end of the day, Laffer's statement isn't so much wrong as it is inane, considering that it ends up boiling down to "somewhere between 0% and 100% there is a tax rate that will get maximum revenue, more revenue than any point higher and lower." Well, yeah. But that gives no useful information in determining what that point is. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: LastVoter on April 25, 2012, 01:02:36 AM Huntsman is so brave. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us Quote Alan Grayson Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths. The myths that are killing us. Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head: (2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit. (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?) The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue. The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue. Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers. It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve. As in to say taxes are still too high? Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue. The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., rich) while still collecting enough tax revenue to maintain a government committed to keeping social order to prevent poors from overthrowing the rich. The endgame is for rich to own as much as they can. There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: Politico on April 25, 2012, 10:54:45 AM Huntsman is so brave. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070070/-The-Myths-That-Are-Killing-Us Quote Alan Grayson Be that as it may, neither Huntsman nor any other Republican Presidential candidate has been willing to take on the hard myths. The myths that are killing us. Here are a dirty dozen, right off the top of my head: (2) Tax cuts reduce the deficit. (Doesn’t it bother them that a man named “Laffer” came up with this one?) The Laffer curve is quite real, but it doesn't say that all tax cuts increase tax revenue. The JFK tax cuts (from a top rate of 91% to 70%, bottom rate of 20% to 14%) and the first set of Reagan tax cuts (70% to 50% and 14% to 12%) were along the parts of the Laffer curve that increased tax revenue. Since then, they've either been roughly neutral or revenue losers. It's worth pointing out thought that in spite of the factual evidence to the contrary, many conservatives (and IIRC even Laffer himself) are arguing even today we're still operating "above" the optimum point of the curve. As in to say taxes are still too high? Yes, saying that taxes are still so high that cutting them would increase tax revenue. The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., rich) while still collecting enough tax revenue to maintain a government committed to keeping social order to prevent poors from overthrowing the rich. The endgame is for rich to own as much as they can. There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives. Democrats protect the rich via barriers whether they be in the form of taxation, regulations, protectionism, etc. The big lie pushed by Democrats is that the natural laws of economics can be legislated away (if only it were that easy). Instead, Democrats use legislation to protect and give preferential treatment to their wealthy donors, and then accuse their opponents of doing exactly that. In comparison, Republicans promote competition and choice in our economy, ensuring a higher level of economic freedom than otherwise. An unintended, but welcome, consequence is the possibility of greater economic mobility than under a system of barriers such as the one described in my first sentence. Title: Re: Jon Huntsman takes another match to the bridge connecting him to the GOP Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 25, 2012, 02:10:56 PM The objective is not to increase tax revenue. The objective is to return as much income as possible to the rightful holders of said income (i.e., taxpayers) while still collecting enough tax revenue to maintain a government committed to national defense, law/order, basic infrastructure, and fulfilling promised obligations (e.g., Social Security/Medicare and long-term fiscal stability). The endgame is economic freedom, personal liberty, and a fiscally responsible, minimalist government. There is a role for government, but that does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of our lives. It all sounds nice, but it doesn't change the fact that the government is spending more than it is receiving taxes, and that Romney doesn't give any meaningful specifics on what spending he would cut. We can no longer afford to play the usual game of tax cuts today, spending cuts to pay for them tomorrow, because tomorrow never comes. |