Headed to Bern-a-palooza tonight.

[grandy]

Kasich is still really low in the polls, RCP averages have him in the 6% area. Has anyone ever polled that low in February only to surge to the top in just a few months?

Even if he's a good nominee, he's simply not popular with the GOP base according to the polls, and that hasn't changed much since the first debate back in August. If one of the top candidates decides to drop out now, I don't think many of those supporters go on to back Kasich.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Kasich is still really low in the polls, RCP averages have him in the 6% area. Has anyone ever polled that low in February only to surge to the top in just a few months?

Even if he's a good nominee, he's simply not popular with the GOP base according to the polls, and that hasn't changed much since the first debate back in August. If one of the top candidates decides to drop out now, I don't think many of those supporters go on to back Kasich.

I don't know; maybe, maybe not.

I do believe that the 65% - 80% of Republican primary voters who support somebody who isn't Trump really want someone who isn't Trump.

 

[Michchamp]

of course YOU don't think his policies are extreme.

well, in practice what would his policies mean, if enacted? a bump in the higher marginal tax rates, that wouldn't likely affect anyone who actually posts here.

i'm assuming he won't get his universal healthplan passed for a while, but jeez, sure would be nice not having to pay the monthly premium I do now. that would offset any bump in my taxes.

congress would fight him tooth and nail on every appointee, but presumably he would get better agency heads in there than any other candidate. I don't see him appointing industry-tied lobbyists to enforcement positions like billary and everyone to her right will do. that's good for all of us, no?

 

[Michchamp]

I don't know; maybe, maybe not.

I do believe that the 65% - 80% of Republican primary voters who support somebody who isn't Trump really want someone who isn't Trump.

it's one of those things that will shake out over time; a lot will depend on what next two candidates drop out. Looks like JEB! may be next if his bizarre tweet from yesterday is any indication of his mental outlook...

I do think he was on to something though... suprised no GOP candidate has made it a point to openly carry a gun while campaigning. that seems like a sure guarantee at least 10% of Republitard voters would be permanently on your side. and a glock + hip holster costs ~$500? that's some smart campaign spending.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't know; maybe, maybe not.

I do believe that the 65% - 80% of Republican primary voters who support somebody who isn't Trump really want someone who isn't Trump.

I wonder what % of us (primary voters) who support somebody who isn't Trump or Bush is.

 

[Spartanmack]

feel the Bern folks, drink it in...

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/how-each-candidates-tax-plan-affects-your-paycheck-photos

Even better than the absolute dollar increase on everyone from Sanders' plan is the projected effect it will have on the economy...

The cost to a household earning $55,000 (which is about the median household income in this country) is an extra $3,852 a year in tax. Americans would also be slapped by the negative effects such taxes would have on the economy.

It’s estimated by the Tax Foundation that over ten years we’d see a loss of 5.9 million jobs, 4.3% decline in wage growth, and a 9.5% decline in GDP growth. Taxes are only part of the cost of a Sanders presidency.

But at least it punishes high earners, many of whom don't necessarily work hard for their income.

 

[Thumb]

It?s estimated by the Tax Foundation that over ten years we?d see a loss of 5.9 million jobs, 4.3% decline in wage growth, and a 9.5% decline in GDP growth. Taxes are only part of the cost of a Sanders presidency.

Yeah, "estimated". Of course they could have said "wildly speculated" and been about as accurate.

 

[Michchamp]

oooh! you found a link from a Republitard blog that posted graphics of how much money candidates will give us. we like money. liberals are bad and will take more money away from us. Republicans are good because they give us more money! see? it's really that simple! Donald Trump is a well-paid rich person who knows things about business and money and the economy and spartanhack respects him, and so we should too.

Ted Cruz's tax plans will also give us more money because republicans are good with
money and business. Just look at the results!

very eye-opening. I have seen the light.

 

[Spartanmack]

Yeah, "estimated". Of course they could have said "wildly speculated" and been about as accurate.

well, when you're talking about the future, you're always estimating but thanks for pointing out the glaring weakness about predictions that nobody has ever thought of before.

 

[Spartanmack]

oooh! you found a link from a Republitard blog that posted graphics of how much money candidates will give us. we like money. liberals are bad and will take more money away from us. Republicans are good because they give us more money! see? it's really that simple! Donald Trump is a well-paid rich person who knows things about business and money and the economy and spartanhack respects him, and so we should too.

Ted Cruz's tax plans will also give us more money because republicans are good with
money and business. Just look at the results!

very eye-opening. I have seen the light.

His plan is about giving money back to the people who earn it and power back to the states, not confiscating more of it for the government to waste on corruption, graft and inefficiency. would you like to compare the results to see which entity is better at managing money and allocating resources - government vs. business?

 

[Michchamp]

yes, just lower everyone's taxes and more money and jobs magically appear. look at how well Kansas and Louisiana are doing. no further evidence needed.

taxes bad; more money good.

liberals hate money; republicans like money; republicans give everyone more money because they are responsible and can balance checkbooks.

thank you for telling us these things mr. smart businessman republican.

 

[sggatecl]

I like how these rags always conveniently ignore that the $3,852 in taxes is considerably less than the $5,500 average spent on private gouged insurances today that you'd be saving.

If you want to speculate about what it might to do the economy, go nuts. You could do that with any plan of any candidate. But throwing out made up numbers is what it's always been: ignorant propaganda.

 

[Thumb]

I like how that site also mentions how well Trumps tax plan will do. Conveniently forgetting that #1 on his "to do" list is building a great wall that he can't even grasp how much will cost. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver was great last night for pointing this out. Trump started by saying it would cost $4B, then he's gone up incrementally from there to somewhere in the neighborhood of $12B now. And engineer estimated that given the height and length proposed by Trump the cost of the wall alone would exceed $40B, not counting new roads they would have to build to move heavy equipment to the border.

But that site thinks Trump's tax plan is a winner, because [Neanderthal]republicans good, liberals bad.[/Neanderthal]

 

[Spartanmack]

yes, just lower everyone's taxes and more money and jobs magically appear. look at how well Kansas and Louisiana are doing. no further evidence needed.

taxes bad; more money good.

liberals hate money; republicans like money; republicans give everyone more money because they are responsible and can balance checkbooks.

thank you for telling us these things mr. smart businessman republican.

You mean this Kansas?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/seeded-with-tax-cuts-kansas-harvests-the-benefits-1431729743

Can you name me a few states or countries that taxed and spent their way to prosperity? should we compare the record of capitalism vs. central planning, democratic socialism or anything else in raising people out of poverty?

Nevermind, we have taxes good, more money in the hands of people who earn it bad (even though it's demonstrated to be completely false) and that's all we need. Bernie 2016!

 

[Spartanmack]

I like how that site also mentions how well Trumps tax plan will do. Conveniently forgetting that #1 on his "to do" list is building a great wall that he can't even grasp how much will cost. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver was great last night for pointing this out. Trump started by saying it would cost $4B, then he's gone up incrementally from there to somewhere in the neighborhood of $12B now. And engineer estimated that given the height and length proposed by Trump the cost of the wall alone would exceed $40B, not counting new roads they would have to build to move heavy equipment to the border.

But that site thinks Trump's tax plan is a winner, because [Neanderthal]republicans good, liberals bad.[/Neanderthal]

How does "The Wall" discredit the tax plan? I don't support the Wall or Trump, but did you notice that even at $40bln, it's a rounding error compared to Bernie's incremental spending?

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain - all you need to know is your greatest fear is "the Wall"

 

[Michchamp]

You mean this Kansas?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/seeded-with-tax-cuts-kansas-harvests-the-benefits-1431729743

Can you name me a few states or countries that taxed and spent their way to prosperity? should we compare the record of capitalism vs. central planning, democratic socialism or anything else in raising people out of poverty?

Nevermind, we have taxes good, more money in the hands of people who earn it bad (even though it's demonstrated to be completely false) and that's all we need. Bernie 2016!

no, this Kansas.

also this, this, and this Kansas.

i guess since you failed to mention anything positive about LA, even the WSJ couldnt stomach the outright lie they'd have to come up with to praise Bobby Jindal's Lousiana... when your SEC state's budget is so fucked up, cutting your prize football team's season is discussed as a gap saving measure, you know your economic plan is screwed up.

but i forgot, derp derp derp, tax cuts = good things & that policy can never fail, it can only be failed. Even if youre budget is a fucking mess after cutting taxes, you can't blame the tax cuts, just the liberals who won't give it more time.

 

[Spartanmack]

no, this Kansas.

also this, this, and this Kansas.

i guess since you failed to mention anything positive about LA, even the WSJ couldnt stomach the outright lie they'd have to come up with to praise Bobby Jindal's Lousiana... when your SEC state's budget is so fucked up, cutting your prize football team's season is discussed as a gap saving measure, you know your economic plan is screwed up.

but i forgot, derp derp derp, tax cuts = good things & that policy can never fail, it can only be failed. Even if youre budget is a fucking mess after cutting taxes, you can't blame the tax cuts, just the liberals who won't give it more time.

well, in addition to the Kansas I already pointed out that is more recent than any article you posted, there is also this Kansas

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinq...hould-set-example-for-neighbors/#4043dc202a94

also, more recent than any of your articles and shows not only did the state experience an increase in in-bound tax payer migration, but income tax revenue increased sequentially in 2015. There may have been a lag affect but the most recent data indicates that the tax cuts are working.

No reasonable person who is not an idiot, which excludes you, could argue that government budgets are a mess because of revenue problems - they are primarily and often exclusively spending problems at least spending problems that result in second order revenue problems as businesses and people leave like Detroit, Flint and the State of Michigan in general. Of course, you still haven't shown any evidence of states increasing taxes and spurring prosperity, just outdated articles you think prove tax cuts are bad.

 

[Thumb]

How does "The Wall" discredit the tax plan? I don't support the Wall or Trump, but did you notice that even at $40bln, it's a rounding error compared to Bernie's incremental spending?

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain - all you need to know is your greatest fear is "the Wall"

You're right, what does the fact that for a rich guy he knows very little about managing/assessing costs/money have to do with anything. Let's elect him president, he'll just file us for bankruptcy and pretend it never happened anyways.

But yeah, I know Bernies bad because he's a socialist right?

 

[Spartanmack]

You're right, what does the fact that for a rich guy he knows very little about managing/assessing costs/money have to do with anything. Let's elect him president, he'll just file us for bankruptcy and pretend it never happened anyways.

But yeah, I know Bernies bad because he's a socialist right?

I'm not voting for Trump. But let's take a closer look at what you're saying. So your criticism is that Trump doesn't manage money well so we should elect a guy who didn't hold a steady job until he was 40 and has consistently carried between $30k and $65k of credit card debt because he has demonstrated much better fiscal responsibility - we should trust his estimate that his socialized healthcare will be revenue positive for the American taxpayer because he has ZERO experience managing a budget, projecting costs and estimating revenues (other than his own personal budget, which we know is a complete disaster) and his support for policies that have proven to be ruinous literally everywhere they have been implemented. Makes a lot of sense - a guy who is permanently broke/bankrupt who has never run any type of enterprise, at all will definitely manage a budget better than a guy that runs a multi-billion dollar business. I'm convinced! Bernie 2016!

 

[dubbsco]

Oh, you mean the several failed ventures that Trump had before his old man bailed him out? The university he started that scammed thousands of people? Maybe Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka, Trump Casinos, Trump Mortgage?

And his constant plead to get rid of illegal immigrants while thousands of said people work in his conglomerates.

If it wasn't for his pops, he'd be selling ketchup popsicles to a woman in white gloves. When he's had to actually do work on his own, his companies have failed time and time again. And to be honest with you, I don't really give a damn if Bernie is worth 1 million or 1 cent, if his head is right and he's got good ideas, who gives a damn? Trump's the king of corporate greed and will buddy up to his rich friends. No thanks.