Magox

You can't deny the changing demographics. Or can you?

As long as we continue economic policies centered around social justice (injustices), the economy will never come close to reaching it's potential.

In a fully employed economy, 2.5-3% is acceptable, in an economy with real unemployment through the roof, 2.5-3% is totally unacceptable.

What kind of question is that? What are you exactly asking?

Depends on if it's cost effective or not. Doesn't make sense to build the infrastructure for a mass transit system in a region of the country that isn't either geographically or economically viable. Some of these projects make sense, some don't.

I never implied that you were a leach

Oh I don't know. That is above my pay grade.

Everything is subject to the Laffer Curver. So it's difficult to determine what is the optimal rate. It's not a static figure, what may be the ideal rate for one period in time may not be for another.

You should have used an exclamation mark after your usage of "Fine"

What do you mean we aren't trying? We are attempting this ethanol crap, lowering emissions from vehicles, increasing gas mileage, expanding biofuel usage, wind energy, nuclear etc. Oh, I get it, you mean, we aren't going with Cap and Trade sort of programs to attempt to remedy our Climate issues. Yeah, you're not a big government sort of dude at all.

Oh please. Stop saying that you're one of these folks. You strongly support Obamacare, which massively expands Medicaid and benefits for couples making $60K a year, funded through higher taxation by the wealthy.

The argument wasn't whether or not there would be more revenues as a result of the Clinton era rates, but rather you're argument that higher rates with full employment was the main reason for the Clinton Surplus. You made no mention of the tech bubble stock market rally, capital gains rates, corporate profits, Clinton era reduction of defense spending. You were trying to make the point that because of the higher rates, we got the surplus. Don't try to pretend that is what you weren't trying to do.

You said, the higher rates coupled with growth. Let's not try to pretend you didn't imply that.

I think it's a little bit more than that, the biggest self-serving Climate Defender on this planet, accepting gobs of money from one of the largest (from his view) Climate destroyers. Nope, you don't see the irony in that at all.

No, it means he's a hypocrite. You're not too quick are you?

It will happen, and they already are beginning to. The question is how long will it take for the transition to complete, and how many elections will they lose between now and then.

Yeah, I kinda agree with this. The younger libertarian minded folks could end up being a huge boost for the R's moving forward. However, in order to do this, they have to let go of the Cons and Social goons.

What do you mean? Everything in TPS world is in a vacuum. I mean if Clinton had a surplus and he raised individual income tax rates, then that would surely mean that because of the higher rates it would of had to have led to the surplus. Never mind the fact that spending relative to GDP was down, never mind the fact that we were fully employed, going through a massive and historic stock market run, and that corporate profits and tax receipts were soaring. Nooooo, it was all because of the income tax rates.

I did And yeah yeah I know, I just thought I'd have a little fun with it.

Al Gore, you know the guy who cares about Climate Change, not for any sort of self-serving reasons, nooooo, but for principled reasons, sold his Current TV network to Al Jazeera, you know that network owned by the country of Qatar, one of the highest Oil/GDP ratios in the world, the country that is primarily funded off of that toxic sludgy product that pollutes the air. Yeah, he's a principled man, cares enough about his country to make sure to sell his company off to the air pollutant nation of Qatar right before he would get hit with the new fiscal cliff agreement. A truly principled man.

The GOP's main problem has next to nothing to do with the fiscal hawks and almost everything to do with the rapidly changing demographics. If they don't become more inclusive, then the slide will continue.

No, the "the loophole thing" is a bargaining chip. You should know how it goes, Dem's usually push for higher taxes, R's for spending cuts, and since the "loophole thing" wasn't part of the fiscal cliff outcome, it naturally will be in the next round of negotiations. The R's have the upper hand in this argument for the reasons that I already outlined earlier. Obama's seen as very weak on the national debt, it is his achilles heal (that and the economy) and in order to try to salvage his legacy, he will have to come through with a meaningful deficit reduction bill. His problem is his base, they don't want to touch the entitlements, specifically S.S. But my guess is that he'll do it, and even though he is an ideologue, and he loves progressive causes, if there is anything he loves more, it's himself. Which means that he will do whatever he can do to build on his legacy, even if that comes at the expense of pissing off some of his base. And if you think that Conservatives aren't breathing fire after the ass whooping they just got from this last Cliff Deal where there were $600 B in tax increases, $50 B in stimulus and only $15 B in spending cuts, then you are delusional. The R's will hold tough on this next debt deal and they won't concede until they get the cuts they are happy with, and even the moderates will hold the line along with them, considering that they just gave Obama what he wanted in the Cliff deal. Funny enough, Politico's main piece of the day is titled Obama's Debt Problem.

Oh really? So when you say that he has a "compelling argument if he can communicate what the debt ceiling really is to people", I suppose you mean how the debt ceiling has been raised many times before, and that it shouldn't be used as a political ploy of some type. Yeah that makes sense, specially considering that Obama Was For Debating Debt Limit Before He Was Against It Yeah, I guess it's different when he did it. So yes, please give us your compelling argument on what the debt ceiling is really about.

But that would take away possibly his greatest strength and asset to the team, his knowledge of a defensive system that works. I'd say for that reason alone, that it would make it very difficult to make him the selection as the HC, unless you are willing to convert back to the 3-4. Which from my perspective wouldn't be the right choice.

But they're both black