TP just out of curiosity has your view on Republican economic principles changed?

Grotewold wrote:TP just out of curiosity has your view on Republican economic principles changed?

Not much. I'm still very much a free market conservative. I think the minimum wage is a harmful canard that hurts the people it's designed to help. I prefer less regulation and the notion of a 70% marginal income tax rate is simply a tool for class warfare. I still think government programs need better design to help citizens become self-sufficient rather than depend on a government check.

I was on the fence about the Trumpy tax cut. It's good to cut business tax rates because that makes us more competitive with other nations. I do believe that grows the economy. I was against cutting tax rates for the richest Americans. There is an optimal rate of taxation that best balances growth and tax revenues. It's above where we are now but it's below 50% marginal rate at the top.

Having said that, I've softened on some issues, most notably health care. While I still think Free Market WIthout Government Interference would provide optimal health care at the lowest cost for 85% of Americans (and free/subsidized health care for the other 15%), I can't see it ever happening. Even though it's government dollars driving the health care cost spiral (just as it's doing to college tuition), I'd be fine with a "Medicare for all" approach. It's suboptimal but better than the current mess.

And I've long been libertarian-liberal on most social issues.

I will be voting for Democrats unless it's Bernie v Kasich or something similar. I will be voting for Democrats until the ugly racism of Trump is washed out of the GOP, which means I'll be voting Democrat for the rest of my life.

What Trump did was to expose the GOP. I truly felt - like Max Boot - that most conservative principles are the best path to prosperity for all Americans. Now I see - including in lifelong friends - that they embrace the GOP out of greed and racism.

thephan wrote:

President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened to cut off federal relief aid to California for wildfires, prompting a swift response from new Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom that "disasters and recovery are no time for politics."

"Billions of dollars are sent to the State of California for Forest fires that, with proper Forest Management, would never happen," Trump tweeted. "Unless they get their act together, which is unlikely, I have ordered FEMA to send no more money. It is a disgraceful situation in lives & money!"

He's vile. Beyond vile.

TP - There are quite a lot of differences between Hillary and Liz Warren. I'm curious as to why you think that Warren is "too Hillary"?

It's called a vagina.

Phred wrote:TP - There are quite a lot of differences between Hillary and Liz Warren. I'm curious as to why you think that Warren is "too Hillary"?

Policy wise, I'm fine with Hillary.

Warren is a bit more left, for sure.

What they share in common is a lecturing tone. Hillary is like the high school vice principal. Warren is somewhere between the cranky librarian and the snooty French teacher. Both lack charisma, but Warren is especially schoolmarmish.

Both are valuable policymakers - but not figureheads.

It's not a gender thing (could it be an age thing?) - there are plenty of engaging female candidates on both sides of the aisle, regardless of policy positions. Kamala Harris, AOC, Nikki Haley, Gillebrand, etc.

Question for the PoliScis here - I realize we are still 663 days from the 2020 election but how late is too late to announce? I would imagine for the relatively unknowns it would have to be pretty soon? Obama announced on 2/10/07, for example. People like Biden can probably wait a bit since he would probably be an immediate front-runner?

https://twitter.com/ScottMcGrew/status/ ... 6465121280

"When I said 'Mexico was going to pay for the wall', obviously I never said this"

momadance wrote:https://twitter.com/ScottMcGrew/status/1083378976465121280

"When I said 'Mexico was going to pay for the wall', obviously I never said this"

Except, he said he was going to ask them to write a check:

https://www.npr.org/2016/04/05/47310947 ... r-the-wall

"You know why you can enjoy a day at the zoo? Because walls work," Trump Jr., 41, wrote in his Instagram story.

TP, do you think people can ever become self sufficient when they're trying to dig out of a hole(economic, systemic, etc..)

momadance wrote:https://twitter.com/ScottMcGrew/status/1083378976465121280

"When I said 'Mexico was going to pay for the wall', obviously I never said this"

"The problem is that no one should ever take seriously anything that I say. That's your problem, not mine."

Beto is a weirdo. He’s instagramming a dental cleaning.

people crave content

sounds like a HIPPA violation

traderdave wrote:"You know why you can enjoy a day at the zoo? Because walls work," Trump Jr., 41, wrote in his Instagram story.

sounds like a HIPPO violation

But really, Donald Jr just compared immigrants to animals. This is how atrocities happen.

TomatoPie wrote:

Grotewold wrote:TP just out of curiosity has your view on Republican economic principles changed?

Not much. I'm still very much a free market conservative. I think the minimum wage is a harmful canard that hurts the people it's designed to help. I prefer less regulation and the notion of a 70% marginal income tax rate is simply a tool for class warfare. I still think government programs need better design to help citizens become self-sufficient rather than depend on a government check.

I was on the fence about the Trumpy tax cut. It's good to cut business tax rates because that makes us more competitive with other nations. I do believe that grows the economy. I was against cutting tax rates for the richest Americans. There is an optimal rate of taxation that best balances growth and tax revenues. It's above where we are now but it's below 50% marginal rate at the top.

Having said that, I've softened on some issues, most notably health care. While I still think Free Market WIthout Government Interference would provide optimal health care at the lowest cost for 85% of Americans (and free/subsidized health care for the other 15%), I can't see it ever happening. Even though it's government dollars driving the health care cost spiral (just as it's doing to college tuition), I'd be fine with a "Medicare for all" approach. It's suboptimal but better than the current mess.

And I've long been libertarian-liberal on most social issues.

I will be voting for Democrats unless it's Bernie v Kasich or something similar. I will be voting for Democrats until the ugly racism of Trump is washed out of the GOP, which means I'll be voting Democrat for the rest of my life.

What Trump did was to expose the GOP. I truly felt - like Max Boot - that most conservative principles are the best path to prosperity for all Americans. Now I see - including in lifelong friends - that they embrace the GOP out of greed and racism.

I’m ok with class warfare

traderdave wrote:Question for the PoliScis here - I realize we are still 663 days from the 2020 election but how late is too late to announce? I would imagine for the relatively unknowns it would have to be pretty soon? Obama announced on 2/10/07, for example. People like Biden can probably wait a bit since he would probably be an immediate front-runner?

Like Christmas displays in retail, the day keeps getting earlier and earlier. But far more important than the "official announcement" is the work a candidate needs to already be doing to be viable. You need to be raising money, or have solid commitments of money, you need to hire core staff, and so forth. You should've visited Iowa and New Hampshire a few times by now. The political environment of course varies. In 2016, Hillary basically tied up most of the support early, and that likely discouraged any viable opposition. I don't think that's likely to happen this time around--there's no clear favorite, which might open the door to a late entry.

Of course, all that is conventional wisdom--there may be other ways to succeed. Each nomination has a different narrative--for example, Bill Clinton wins in 92 in part because during the "invisible primary" period of 1991, Bush was extremely popular, and most prominent Democratic contenders thought they'd be better off waiting until 1996, leaving the door open for a not all that accomplished governor of a shitty state. I think most Democrats though are making a very different calculation this time around, promising a crowded field. The other thing though Clinton had going for him in 92 was the belief that his centrist politics were necessary to win, and Democrats were hungry for someone who could win after 12 years of Republicans in the White House. (And really, aside from the disappointing Carter interregnum, you had Republicans in the White since 68, so you could I guess understand the support for Clinton.)

Remember kids it's ONLY class warfare when the less-to-do expect the wealthier to pay more taxes, NOT when the middle class complains about the poor getting food stamps and healthcare!