Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 7, 2012 at 9:46 AM in reply to: Good fact based WSJ article on who pays taxes in America #749604
poorgradstudent
ParticipantMeh?
I’m no fan of Romney, but none of this strikes me as that outrageous. Property values fell from 2009 to 2010. As noted, a lot of people had their property taxes reassessed. This isn’t like having $21m in your IRA… having their property taxes reassessed is both within the spirit and letter of the law.ParticipantRich is superhuman good at killing spam himself. It’s kinda scary, to be honest.
ParticipantSo now that Romney’s foreign policy tour has pretty much been a disaster, does this change the game at all? Is Romney now forced to pick a VP Candidate with stronger foreign policy credentials? It did work for Obama in 2008; he was perceived as weak and inexperienced on FP and picked Biden partially to balance the ticket in that regard.
The trouble, of course, is most strong FP republicans aren’t the type to throw a lot of red meat to the tea partiers… I don’t envy his position. He’s got big shoes to fill for his running mate and no obvious candidate.ParticipantWe’ve already seen most governments slash or eliminate pension benefits for new hires. What we’re going to also see as the economy recovers is public employees start to demand salaries that compensate for those lower benefits. Pretty simple economics.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]The problem is that it opens the whole thing to a fishing contest. Romney makes most of his income from Investments. 2008 was a very bad year for investments and any smart tax planner would use the losses of 2008 to cancel any gains in 2009 and after if possible. I think the Obama campaign is trying to bring up that Romney didn’t pay taxes in 2009 (because of investment losses). This is likely to play well people who don’t understand saving and investing, and will make a good ‘sound bite’ and diversion from the facts and presidential performance. The problem is that the previous election, very few Democrat Presidential hopefuls revealed their tax returns. Almost all of the Republican hopefuls revealed 2 years. One needs to ask: What is the real point of this requirement?[/quote]
I seriously doubt this is the reason for Romney’s hesitance. I actually think he made a LOT of money in 2008. He probably profited off of bets against America. Smart bets in hindsight, but the kind of stuff gets even Tea Partiers mad.ParticipantLouisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Ohio Sen. Rob Portman are reported to be the short list. My money is on Portman. Ohio is must win for Romney, and his team is not going to risk another Palin. Portman is a nice safe choice from an important swing state.
Participant[quote=flu]Give anyone with a credit score 750 or higher who is well qualified for a loan on either primary home or rental home(s) and/or both 0.0% APR fixed rate loan for 15 years and allow those well qualified people to take out as many loans as their income can support, with the caveat that
(1) The loans only given to U.S. citizens and permanent residence.
(2) The loans would go through extensive screening, checking and verification such that liar loans are nearly impossible.1. Housing market problem goes away
2. Keeps the stock market pumped up (since no one will want to buy fixed income)
3. Put’s this country’s finances in the hands of the more qualified and more responsible people in this county.But most importantly…It would benefit people like me the most.[/quote]
I like your idea, but let’s change it just to first time home buyers with good credit. Because it would benefit people like *me* the most. We don’t need more rental properties, especially in San Diego.ParticipantI’m skeptical a true Tiger Mom would brag about their kids. A Tiger Mom hangs her head in shame when her son comes home with only an A- on his latest paper. A Tiger Dad frets when his daughter only gets a 2250 on her SAT.
ParticipantShort term market moves have a lot of noise to them. For JP Morgan I’m guessing analysts were expecting things to be a lot worse than they were. The stock is still down ~20% from when the news broke about their rogue trader, so that stuff was probably already priced in. As for HP, that 2% drop is largely noise, but they are facing long term structural challenges, so I wouldn’t buy on that drop!
ParticipantIncreasing government spending during down times and decreasing during good times also makes good fiscal sense. Labor and materials tend to be cheaper during busts, so important government infrastructure projects should be able to be completed at lower cost than they would if done during a boom. Also, borrowing costs are often cheaper during downtimes, so it actually makes a ton of good sense to complete necessary projects during recessions as opposed to trying to do them when things are good.
July 10, 2012 at 3:53 PM in reply to: OT: Politically Correctness has sucken to an all time low…. #747628Participant[quote=deadzone]My point is that the majority of real people (not politicians) are against birth right citizenship. Liberals are the ones that defend it politically, but ask real people on the street if they agree with it or not. Most of my friends are traditional Democrats and they think it is a non-sensical policy.[/quote]
“Most of my friends” is rarely an effective argument. Most of my friends have PhDs. That doesn’t mean “normal” people do. There’s really no such thing as a “traditional” Democrat, except perhaps white working class Union households. As an example, African Americans didn’t really start voting democratic until the 60s. The Democrats are the “Big Tent” party in the US and have far more diverse opinions on most issues than the Republicans do.I think most “real people” hold conflicting, complicated positions on immigration and birth right citizenship.
Participant[quote=livinincali]Got to love the Keynesian argument. If your stimulus efforts don’t produce the desired growth effects you can always say it would have worked if there was more stimulus. You can fail over and over increasing debt faster than GDP and claim there just needs to be more stimulus to produce growth.
I’ve yet to see one successful example of a person, corporation or country spending it’s way out of debt successfully. It always ends in a hyper inflationary money printing or a deflationary depression, but it’s different this time. Krugman’s got it all figured out.[/quote]
To be a true Keynesian you have to raise taxes and decrease spending in economic good times in order to save for a rainy day. George W. Bush’s administration failed to do so; they cut taxes and increased spending during the economic boom he presided over. Even most of Reagan’s economic team were Keynesians. That’s exactly *WHY* Saint Ronald raised taxes later in his administration.The trouble is, what’s rational and correct is rarely politically popular. People want low taxes and high government services. So we’re often stuck with a stupid compromise where the government overspends while under taxing.
July 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM in reply to: OT: Politically Correctness has sucken to an all time low…. #747616Participant[quote=deadzone]Brian, once again you are in the minority if you support birth right citizenship. Most liberals I know are against it. Comparing birth right critics to tea partiers is total crap and demonstrates how out of touch with reality you are. Also, most of the world’s developed countries do NOT have birth right citizenship.[/quote]
I think birth right citizenship isn’t a specifically partisan issue. Generally the people most against it are those most at risk to having their jobs taken, which means both working class Union folks and working Tea Partiers. 1%ers LOVE having cheap labor, which is why the Republicans will never ACTUALLY do anything about immigration. Newt Gingrich stated the real position of the Republican party in the debates before having to back away from it. And Liberal Elites tend to support a more open immigration policy either from a bleeding heart perspective or just trying to be practical.ParticipantHonestly? Leave San Diego. Unless you have family here or are here for the jobs, San Diego is a terrible city for retirees.
-
AuthorPosts
