Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Miscellaneous 169
1) I think that the progressives really have to figure out what they truly want. Do they want to raise more revenue, or do they strictly want to redistribute assets? According to Professor Davies' analysis, the federal government raised more than twice as much revenue per person when the top marginal rate was 50% than it did when it was 91% (and even more so when it was dropped to 28%). Of course that dreaded wealth disparity ended up being greater, too, and therein seems to lie the rub.............2) According to a 2009 study by the National Academy of Sciences, ethanol and electric vehicles actually imposed more environmental and health damages on society than did gasoline, diesel fuel, and significantly more than natural gas. Again, I ask you folks, WHERE'S THE GREEN?............3) Chris Christie has gone from conservative darling to persona non grata in less than 18 months (embracing Obama, accepting Medicaid funds, being a moderate on gun-control, etc.). You know what I have to say to that? Good. And I think that Mr. Christie SHOULD run in 2016 - AS AN INDEPENDENT! I mean, think about it here. The dude has strong appeal across the political spectrum. He's strong in terms of name ID. AND he tells it like it is. If there is anyone out there who could buck the trend and somehow gather those 270 delegates, and do it OUTSIDE the system, he would definitely be the one, in my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Item 1. The devil is in the details, such as,
The 28% rate was in the 50's to mid 60's on income over $400,000 while the 28% rate was in the late 80's on income over about 30,000.
Let's keep our comparisons apples to apples.
28% was the top rate that was agreed upon via the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (the rates were reduced in exchange for an elimination of certain loopholes/deductions) and you're saying here that that top rate started at $30,000?
Here is my reference.
Look for lots of fat jokes and other nasty ads against Christie fueled by union money. His stance in favor of workers' rights have made him an enemy of union thugs.
Flat tax. I wouldn't vote for Chris Christie if he ran as an independant.
Wow, I didn't know that, Jerry. I personally would have advocated for a much higher threshold but if you're thinking about blaming Reagan exclusively for this, Gephardt and company signed on to it, too. Totally bipartisan it was.
dmarks and Barlowe, I would consider him and strongly. The country desperately needs some independence in my opinion.
Barlowe said: "Flat tax. I wouldn't vote for Chris Christie if he ran as an independant."
I am guessing you are a strong conservative and usually vote Republican. As such a voter, voting for someone like Christie as an independent would effectively be a vote for the Democratic candidate.
Can't say this for Will or RN. They are already voting for an independent, so there's no vote taken away.
I'll vote for him if he's the Republican nominee, but the Republicans need to run an actual Conservative. We lost the last two elections (in part) due to the candidate being a Moderate.
Yeah, but guys, what if Christie had a legitimate path to 270? Would you maybe consider the dude then?
I liked Christie's no nonsense style, but there was a lot of outrage in New Jersey over how he wanted to merge the Rutgers-Camden campus with Rowan University and a whole ton of people there were outraged. I should know. Back then, I had even been accepted to the New Brunswick campus out of state and was even going to attend college there, but decided to take a gap year instead because it costed way too much out of state. I ended up cancelling my application, going through a similar financial situation with a state school and have decided to sign up for the Air Force after all of this for many reasons. I don't think trying to restructure a campus that radically was one of Christie's best ideas and he worked with a corrupt Democrat politician named George Norcross on that one, I believe.
Barlowe, I think you've been listening to too much talk radio. What exactly do you mean by "conservative." Do you mean another imperialistic, global militaristic scumbag who doesn't give one damn about maintaining a sort of "America First" kind of policy, even though there are plenty of foreign policy screw-ups from the Obama administration. I'm just happy that we haven' made the ultimate mistake of attacking Iran and plunging the country into World War III, which can be remedied by stop outright supporting Israel to be honest, and no, I'm not being anti-Semitic, but having this obsession with funneling money there is not in the country's best interests. When I think of conservative, I think a lot about prudence and what people like Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk and the Old Right believed in and that's what the GOP really needs right now. Stop obsessing over issues like abortion to appease the Evangelical voters.
"...which can be remedied by stop outright supporting Israel to be honest, and no, I'm not being anti-Semitic..."
The Jewish people in Israel have targets on their heads, each and every one of them, due to several neighbors which have sworn to kill off every Jewish Israeli man, woman and child. At least one powerful neighbor with a huge military, as well. If not for the aid to this nation, these aggressive neighbors will be able to complete their Final Solution.
I also disagree with your statement helping this close ally and friend isn't in the country's best interest. The nation is an island of sanity surrounding by slavering, drooling, mad-dogs bent on genocide.
They (the Palestinians) could have had peace and statehood back in 2000 but Arafat urinated all over Clinton and Barak and called for another Intifada instead. That being said, I think that the Israelis should probably disengage from the West Bank as soon as possible (yes, they might have to annex some of the nonpopulated territory in the center to make the country fatter than 11 miles and more defensible) in an effort to not become a minority ruler down the road, for that would be embarrassing.
Will: Good point. But sometimes I think that the Israeli policy of expanding settlements shows that there are consequences to the Palestinian government's constant demand for extermination and aggression.
In any case, any student of that area would do well to look at Israel in the Sinai. Once Egpyt called off its own intent of extermination and conquest, and decided that Israelis had a right to live, the Israelis completely left the region. If the Palestinians did the same as the Egyptians did then, Israel would leave all the occupied territories.
Apparently, the Palestinians are not students of the area.
The next Republican candidate for president needs to be a fiscal conservative (above all else). I'm not happy with the "nation building" we conducted in Afghanistan and Iraq. We needed to strike back against the terrorists, but the nation building was largely a waste of money.
All options need to be on the table in regards to Iran, but full out war should be avoided.
Also, I oppose abortion because it is murder. Most people believe murder should be illegal, not just Evangelical voters.
And Israel did get out of Gaza only to be rewarded immediately with rocket fire....One can only hope here that Mr. Abbas would show far more prudence.
Abbas, the supposed moderate, has spoken of creating a new Palestinian nation that will be completely cleansed of any Jews.
I wonder if he can borrow some boxcars from a certain historic sight in Poland in order to carry out his announced genocide.
Also, it is quite obvious that Abbas' promise to purge the future Palestinian homeland of Jewish people is a very strong incentive for Israel to occupy these lands and control them in perpetuity. In fact, occupation is the only reasonable response.
Post a Comment