The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by 3894

Is it the accent or the words?

The condesending tone he speaks with.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I didn't watch the debate last night, but I don't find Thompson to be that way at all. But you probably aren't sickened by the very sound of Edward's voice like I am.

I don't think either of them come off well. Call it regional bias, but I don't think Edwards has a very winning appearance. He looks and sounds like someone doing a bad impression of Dan Aykroyd's Jimmy Carter impersonation.

This is what Thompson's candidacy reminds me of as it's all about appearance. I half keep expecting him to drop trou a la LBJ and demonstrate his qualifications to run the country.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Here.

From your link -

Stephen Entin, president of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, a Washington organization, told the Times that the tax cuts did not go far enough because the more money the wealthiest had to invest, the more that would go to investments that produce jobs.

[3894]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Call it regional bias, but I don't think Edwards has a very winning appearance.

Okay, it's regional bias.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Correlation? Maybe.....but can you find an equal number of recent correlations showing that lowering taxes produces less revenue?

I can find you examples where lowering taxes lead to lower revenue, examples where raising taxes lead to lower revenue, examples where raising taxes lead to higher revenue, and examples where lowering taxes lead to higher revenue. What would be the point? There are but a small handful of examples, none of which are more than circumstantial correlations that were caused by such immense factors that 1) have shown no consistent pattern and 2) can't possibly be pinned to being affected solely by the act of changing taxation.

btw: Is "proven" a word? My spell check didn't like it???

"Proved" is technically the correct form, though "proven" is an accepted alternative. I personally prefer "proven" and have added to my Firefox dictionary. Incidentally, "Firefox" is not in the Firefox dictionary.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I can find you examples where lowering taxes lead to lower revenue, examples where raising taxes lead to lower revenue, examples where raising taxes lead to higher revenue, and examples where lowering taxes lead to higher revenue. What would be the point? There are but a small handful of examples, none of which are more than circumstantial correlations that were caused by such immense factors that 1) have shown no consistent pattern and 2) can't possibly be pinned to being affected solely by the act of changing taxation.

Fair enough.

"Proved" is technically the correct form, though "proven" is an accepted alternative. I personally prefer "proven" and have added to my Firefox dictionary. Incidentally, "Firefox" is not in the Firefox dictionary.

lol

[Disneyphile]

I wish presidents could only serve a single 4-year term. I can't think of a single one who hasn't screwed up in their second term.

Everyone gets a little burned out in their jobs and sometimes start making mistakes - so do presidents. So, I think we should prevent it from happening as much as possible.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

I wish presidents could only serve a single 4-year term. I can't think of a single one who hasn't screwed up in their second term.

But what if the reason they screw up the second term is that they are not worrying about re-election and thus are not answerable to the voters anymore?

If that's the case allowing only single 4-year terms would have the exact opposite effect you are desiring.

Perhaps a better solution would be to allow Presidents to keep running as long as they like.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

But what if the reason they screw up the second term is that they are not worrying about re-election and thus are not answerable to the voters anymore?

Impeachment, thought don't look to this bunch in DC for a lesson in how that's supposed to work.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

From your link -

Not everyone agrees.

The recent analysis by Mr. Page at the Congressional Budget Office dismisses the idea that tax cuts may actually improve the government's fiscal situation. Even in his most generous scenario, only 28 percent of lost tax revenue is recouped over a 10-year period.