(04-17-2015 03:46 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  Personally I think that everything you mention as possibly happening due to tax code restructuring already has been happening for a while. Service jobs like tech support and IT have been moving for a while now. A large percentage of the new jobs being created are low wage service jobs, and again, this is without tax restructuring.

Yes, exactly, it has been happening for quite some time. Perot talked about it in 1992. But that goes to prove my point, not to disprove it. The reason those things have been happening is that the tax code is ALREADY skewed too far in that direction. Restructuring it further in that direction would only make it worse.

I'll repeat the question I have asked before in other threads. The left complains that businesses are offshoring to get lower costs, lower taxes, and less intrusive regulations, but as a solution they propose higher costs, higher taxes, and more intrusive regulations. How does that work?

Quote:Ideally I'd like to see stiff penalties on corporate inversions. See Burger King as an example. I don't know enough about tax law or potential fallout from decision A vs. decision B, but I do know the current system is not working and has the country on a downward trajectory. This philosophy of the past 10-15 years of rewarding shareholders at all costs is something that has to be dealt with, and it seems like taxes are the only way to do it.

But here's what you're ignoring. Those shareholders are mobile, and their money is even if they aren't. Do the things you propose, and more of their money goes elsewhere, which simply acerbates the problem. Outlaw inversions and that increases the risk of investing in the US. You could end up with your investment trapped in a bad situation and no way to get out.

It's not a philosophy of rewarding investors at all costs. It's that investors are going to seek the maximum reward, determined objectively. If you want more of them to invest, you need to increase the reward. Unless of course, you are willing to send the Marines to overthrow every government that rewards investment better than we do. Investment will seek the greatest reward, particularly investment in the value-added portion of the supply chain, which is where the middle-class jobs lie.

One other point. Even if you make it harder for Americans to move their money, you can't do the same for foreign nationals because you don't have jurisdiction over anything but what they invest here.

Or ask my above question another way, suppose I have a new product that I plan to market worldwide and I am looking to spend $100 million to build a plant which will employ 3,000 people to make that product. Why should I put that plant in the US? And unless you can provide a compelling answer to that question, how do you propose to restore the middle class?

(04-17-2015 03:46 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  Detailed explanation, thank you. I don't personally agree with it, but that's politics, lol.

What are your specific disagreements, and why?

libertarian here. I'll be voting for Gary Johnson unless Rand gets the nomination. And that vote for Rand is under the assumption he's not saying what he really believes right now so he'll get elected. Plus I'm hoping he can purge the clogged toilet that is GOP leadership.

(04-17-2015 04:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'll repeat the question I have asked before in other threads. The left complains that businesses are offshoring to get lower costs, lower taxes, and less intrusive regulations, but as a solution they propose higher costs, higher taxes, and more intrusive regulations. How does that work?

I guess the question is, what will work? Right now I think the top .1% has 60%+ of the wealth in the country, meaning that increasingly less is available to the middle class and lower to put back into the economy. What spurs moving even 1/4th of that wealth to the other 99.9% to buoy the economy and create higher paying jobs?

It's almost like chicken and the egg. That .1% has shown that (outside of the credit card guy in Seattle) they are unwilling to pay fair working wages and would rather horde the cash. So how do you give middle class and lower wage increases since they've been stagnant for over a decade now? Taxes seem like the only option.

Quote:Or ask my above question another way, suppose I have a new product that I plan to market worldwide and I am looking to spend $100 million to build a plant which will employ 3,000 people to make that product. Why should I put that plant in the US? And unless you can provide a compelling answer to that question, how do you propose to restore the middle class?

The answer to that is always going to be to put the plant in the cheapest location with the most efficient labor force. Most of the time that means China. I don't see putting that plant here helping the US at all.

(04-17-2015 04:12 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  The answer to that is always going to be to put the plant in the cheapest location with the most efficient labor force. Most of the time that means China. I don't see putting that plant here helping the US at all.

If it's a cheap consumer good, maybe the cheap location.

If it's a more complicated (and more expensive) producer good, absolutely not. Why not? Because the Chinese labor force can't execute what they would be required to do. The most efficient labor force is seldom the cheapest labor force.

Not every decision is US versus China. Actually very few are. The jobs that we want--the ones that would pay enough to support a middle class--don't go to China because Chinese workers can't do them. I think the whole China thing is a deliberate misinformation campaign by the left to deflect away from the real issues.

The jobs we really want go to places like Germany. Germany can't compete with China for sewing up Pumas and Adidas any more than we can compete with China for sewing up Nikes. But if sewing up Nikes is our future, then our middle class his hosed. Instead of lamenting, Germany does the things that Germany can do better than China--high quality, upscale producer goods. And Germany does very well doing that.

That's where our future lies as well. We need to be competing with Germany, not China.

(04-17-2015 04:12 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  I guess the question is, what will work? Right now I think the top .1% has 60%+ of the wealth in the country, meaning that increasingly less is available to the middle class and lower to put back into the economy.

You incentivize them to put activities that can pay workers $60-80,000 a year here. Right now we are driving those activities away, and have been for decades.

By the way, whatever percentage of wealth the top 1% or whatever holds has not one thing to do with how much is available to anyone else. You're incorrectly viewing it as a closed loop system, where there is a finite amount of wealth, with none flowing in or out. That's not how things work. Wealth flows away from consumers to producers. The more we move from a producer economy to a consumer economy, the less wealth there is to go around. And the "rich" can always get theirs, so that leaves less for everybody else. Become a producer economy again, and wealth will flow in to everybody, particularly to those whose labor creates the added value.

Quote:What spurs moving even 1/4th of that wealth to the other 99.9% to buoy the economy and create higher paying jobs?

Trying to move 1/4th of the wealth is how you become Argentina (if you're lucky) or Zimbabwe (if you're not). A century ago, Argentina was the 8th largest economy in the world. Then the Peronistas tried redistribution on a massive scale. What happened happened.

Quote:It's almost like chicken and the egg. That .1% has shown that (outside of the credit card guy in Seattle) they are unwilling to pay fair working wages and would rather horde the cash. So how do you give middle class and lower wage increases since they've been stagnant for over a decade now? Taxes seem like the only option.

To make wage increases economically viable, you have to get them doing things that justify higher wages. It's like Perot said, you can't pay grandson as much to deliver a pizza as you paid grandpa to run a steel mill. People don't hoard cash to be unfair. They do it because the economics don't justify risking it. Actually, nobody hoards cash at all, unless you mean people who bury it in tomato cans in their yard. If you put the money in a bank, the bank loans it out. The bank has to make money on your money. That's how they stay in business. So the money the "rich" person is "hoarding" turns into the home loan that puts some middle class person in a new house to the equipment loan that lets some entrepreneur start a new business. There is little, if any, actual hoarding taking place.

Quote:To make wage increases economically viable, you have to get them doing things that justify higher wages.

Like increase your productivity?

(04-17-2015 04:12 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 04:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'll repeat the question I have asked before in other threads. The left complains that businesses are offshoring to get lower costs, lower taxes, and less intrusive regulations, but as a solution they propose higher costs, higher taxes, and more intrusive regulations. How does that work?

I guess the question is, what will work? Right now I think the top .1% has 60%+ of the wealth in the country, meaning that increasingly less is available to the middle class and lower to put back into the economy. What spurs moving even 1/4th of that wealth to the other 99.9% to buoy the economy and create higher paying jobs?

It's almost like chicken and the egg. That .1% has shown that (outside of the credit card guy in Seattle) they are unwilling to pay fair working wages and would rather horde the cash. So how do you give middle class and lower wage increases since they've been stagnant for over a decade now? Taxes seem like the only option.

Quote:Or ask my above question another way, suppose I have a new product that I plan to market worldwide and I am looking to spend $100 million to build a plant which will employ 3,000 people to make that product. Why should I put that plant in the US? And unless you can provide a compelling answer to that question, how do you propose to restore the middle class?

The answer to that is always going to be to put the plant in the cheapest location with the most efficient labor force. Most of the time that means China. I don't see putting that plant here helping the US at all.

No, no no no no. A millions times no. Unless you honestly believe they have taken that 60%, stuck it in a coffee can and buried it on the back yard. Or perhaps hidden between the mattresses.

First off, it's not a zero sum game. There is no finite amount of money out there that is fought over like scraps on a dinner table. If the .1% has a lot of dough, then go get yours! Just because they're rich doesn't mean you can't be. That's up to you, not them.

What will spur them to move even a 1/4 of their wealth into the economy? Where do you think it is now? The wealthy are pretty good at making money (thanks Capt. Obvious), do you think their assets are sitting idle somewhere?

Even if it were, what would get them to move it? Make it profitable to do so. Make it worth risking their wealth. You don't increase their willingness to take on additional risk by punishing them further. That simply drives investment elsewhere.

Guess what happens then? Exactly, look around, it's precisely what you are concerned about.

We need to be creating additional incentives to invest and create manufacturing and jobs. Not putting up even more obstacles and punishments that make it not worth doing.




Clearly Owl is either a much faster typist or isn't nearly as distracted at the moment.

Yea, what he said. Or maybe I just hadn't caught up, should have checked and saved my time. haha

@Owl: I think it's a difference of opinion, but agreement on what's happening. The wealthy are creating jobs in countries that give them the most ROI and that right now isn't the US a lot of the time. Your viewpoint seems to be that the government needs to make it more attractive to businesses to place those jobs here via less punishing taxes and even tax incentives where possible. Correct me if I'm wrong.

My viewpoint is that these people have already greatly benefited from a very skewed system that rewards investors and the stock market at a much higher rate than average employees, and has at an exponential rate since Reagan was in office.

It seems like the best compromise would be to incentivize business but put a much harsher curve on personal wealth accumulation above a certain amount. I know hardcore conservatives view that as "redistribution of wealth", but I would argue that a company like Walmart triple dipping (low employee wages, using the government to help "pay" its employees via medicaid and food stamps, and then receiving money back through product purchases using food stamps and medicaid) is far more insidious and a perversion of capitalism.

(04-17-2015 04:49 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  First off, it's not a zero sum game. There is no finite amount of money out there that is fought over like scraps on a dinner table.

Currency is absolutely not infinite. Infinite currency holds no value.

(04-17-2015 04:49 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  @Owl: I think it's a difference of opinion, but agreement on what's happening. The wealthy are creating jobs in countries that give them the most ROI and that right now isn't the US a lot of the time. Your viewpoint seems to be that the government needs to make it more attractive to businesses to place those jobs here via less punishing taxes and even tax incentives where possible. Correct me if I'm wrong.

My viewpoint is that these people have already greatly benefited from a very skewed system that rewards investors and the stock market at a much higher rate than average employees, and has at an exponential rate since Reagan was in office.

It seems like the best compromise would be to incentivize business but put a much harsher curve on personal wealth accumulation above a certain amount. I know hardcore conservatives view that as "redistribution of wealth", but I would argue that a company like Walmart triple dipping (low employee wages, using the government to help "pay" its employees via medicaid and food stamps, and then receiving money back through product purchases using food stamps and medicaid) is far more insidious and a perversion of capitalism.

(04-17-2015 04:49 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  First off, it's not a zero sum game. There is no finite amount of money out there that is fought over like scraps on a dinner table.

Currency is absolutely not infinite. Infinite currency holds no value.

Not currency, I'm using "money" to mean wealth, goods, services, resources, whatever.

But I think you knew that... If that's what you got from all that, then N/M.

(04-17-2015 04:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Not currency, I'm using "money" to mean wealth, goods, services, resources, whatever.

But I think you knew that... If that's what you got from all that, then N/M.

Same thing, though. Wealth is finite. The amount that exists at any one point may go up or go down, but it's always a fight for scraps unless you're heavily invested in the stock market. The percentage earned by the average middle class white collar worker has been falling/stagnant for quite a while now. The average blue collar worker has taken an absolute beating since the 70s. The handful of people at the very top continue to amass wealth at an alarming rate.

(04-17-2015 04:49 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  @Owl: I think it's a difference of opinion, but agreement on what's happening. The wealthy are creating jobs in countries that give them the most ROI and that right now isn't the US a lot of the time. Your viewpoint seems to be that the government needs to make it more attractive to businesses to place those jobs here via less punishing taxes and even tax incentives where possible. Correct me if I'm wrong.
My viewpoint is that these people have already greatly benefited from a very skewed system that rewards investors and the stock market at a much higher rate than average employees, and has at an exponential rate since Reagan was in office.
It seems like the best compromise would be to incentivize business but put a much harsher curve on personal wealth accumulation above a certain amount. I know hardcore conservatives view that as "redistribution of wealth", but I would argue that a company like Walmart triple dipping (low employee wages, using the government to help "pay" its employees via medicaid and food stamps, and then receiving money back through product purchases using food stamps and medicaid) is far more insidious and a perversion of capitalism.

This is the Argentina/Zimbabwe problem. You are incorrectly assuming a closed system. The "rich" must take from the rest, and all we need to do is take from the rich and redistribute it to everybody else.

But that's not how it works. The "rich" don't want to be taken from. And they have ways to avoid it, so they do. If you tell me that as an American I can only accumulate, say, $10 billion, and I am in position to make much, much more, and Portugal or Dubai or Singapore or wherever tells me no problem, I can accumulate as much as I want to there, then that's where my money is going. That's happening now, to some extent, with income but not yet with wealth, because we don't have those kinds of wealth restrictions. But impose them and it will happen. If you try imposing it on Americans' worldwide holdings, many of them will transfer citizenship. If Portugal is willing to let them accumulate as much as they want, you can bet Portugal can find a way to issue a Portuguese passport in a hurry if needed.

But even if you make it harder for Americans to flee, you're overlooking something. Right now our net imports are several hundred billion a year, up to a trillion in some years. That money has to come back in the form of investment by foreigners in the US, or our economy suffers a huge wealth drain (5-6% of GDP per year). Impose the kinds of limits you propose and that money dries up and goes elsewhere. We are Argentina if the foreign money dries up, Zimbabwe if Americans can get their money out too.

Quote:Currency is absolutely not infinite. Infinite currency holds no value.

It's not fixed either. And wealth isn't currency.

(04-17-2015 05:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But even if you make it harder for Americans to flee, you're overlooking something. Right now our net imports are several hundred billion a year, up to a trillion in some years. That money has to come back in the form of investment by foreigners in the US, or our economy suffers a huge wealth drain (5-6% of GDP per year). Impose the kinds of limits you propose and that money dries up and goes elsewhere. We are Argentina if the foreign money dries up, Zimbabwe if Americans can get their money out too.

So then how do you solve the problem? How do you get a company with $16.363 billion in annual profit to pay its workers a living wage and stop taking US tax dollars as another (very large) revenue source?

I don't have an issue with people becoming wealthy. What I have an issue with is people becoming exorbitantly wealthy at their workers and the taxpayers' expense. Rob Walton alone has seen his personal wealth go up $13 billion (from $26.1b to $39.1b) in the past two years.

(04-17-2015 04:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why? How would what they believe as "social conservatives" render them as a bad candidate? What do you think they would do that you would deem bad or bad for America?

Well, that's easy: personally, I'm not a social conservative at all. I have been more than willing to vote for Republicans that hold socially conservative viewpoints (as I have voted Republican in every Presidential election that I've been eligible to vote in, which goes back to 1996, including voting against Obama twice as a Chicagoan under 40 where such stance isn't nearly as looked at as favorably as it would be in the South, to say the least) because I'm a fiscal conservative that understood the politics of the GOP needing turnout from that wing of the party, but then practically would do little or nothing about socially conservative issues when they actually got voted into office. That was perfectly fine with me in order to ensure that populist economic policies (which politicians have MUCH more control over) didn't get enacted. I get the political game that the Republicans have played from the Reagan through W era, as cynical as that might be. Jeb, Rubio and Christie fall into that category - they'll surely say things that are socially conservative, but I don't believe at all that they'll push that agenda if elected (which is a good thing in my mind).

However, there are certain GOP candidates, such as Rick Santorum in 2012 and Mike Huckabee in 2008, that are explicitly running on social conservative platforms (along with Tea Party candidates that are diving in with them such as Ted Cruz). I won't consider them whatsoever. At the same time, social conservatives can actually affirmatively do damage on the gay rights issue right now. I could hold my nose regarding socially conservative viewpoints when they were just election platitudes for voter turnout efforts and no one attempted to pass any laws about them when they were in office. If they're actively trying to curb gay rights, though, then that's a no go. As much as I agree MUCH more with Republican fiscal policy, I can't sit with a straight face and tell the gay people that I know that I'm fine with them being discriminated against and having less than full rights as long as my taxes are lowered.

If I'm thinking this way as a life-long Republican under the age of 40 whose direct economic self-interest is to vote Republican, then one can imagine what others who don't have the same economic incentives think. Other Republicans don't have to agree with me on a personal level, but I would hope that they would see the light at some point on a political level (sort of like an Auburn fan acknowledging when Alabama is better than them on-the-field or vice versa regardless of personal opinion). There are significantly bigger fiscal issues to fry and social issues are getting in the way more than ever.

I'd only vote for Hillary over Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, and Obama.

(04-17-2015 05:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 04:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why? How would what they believe as "social conservatives" render them as a bad candidate? What do you think they would do that you would deem bad or bad for America?

Well, that's easy: personally, I'm not a social conservative at all. I have been more than willing to vote for Republicans that hold socially conservative viewpoints (as I have voted Republican in every Presidential election that I've been eligible to vote in, which goes back to 1996, including voting against Obama twice as a Chicagoan under 40 where such stance isn't nearly as looked at as favorably as it would be in the South, to say the least) because I'm a fiscal conservative that understood the politics of the GOP needing turnout from that wing of the party, but then practically would do little or nothing about socially conservative issues when they actually got voted into office. That was perfectly fine with me in order to ensure that populist economic policies (which politicians have MUCH more control over) didn't get enacted. I get the political game that the Republicans have played from the Reagan through W era, as cynical as that might be. Jeb, Rubio and Christie fall into that category - they'll surely say things that are socially conservative, but I don't believe at all that they'll push that agenda if elected (which is a good thing in my mind).

However, there are certain GOP candidates, such as Rick Santorum in 2012 and Mike Huckabee in 2008, that are explicitly running on social conservative platforms (along with Tea Party candidates that are diving in with them such as Ted Cruz). I won't consider them whatsoever. At the same time, social conservatives can actually affirmatively do damage on the gay rights issue right now. I could hold my nose regarding socially conservative viewpoints when they were just election platitudes for voter turnout efforts and no one attempted to pass any laws about them when they were in office. If they're actively trying to curb gay rights, though, then that's a no go. As much as I agree MUCH more with Republican fiscal policy, I can't sit with a straight face and tell the gay people that I know that I'm fine with them being discriminated against and having less than full rights as long as my taxes are lowered.

If I'm thinking this way as a life-long Republican under the age of 40 whose direct economic self-interest is to vote Republican, then one can imagine what others who don't have the same economic incentives think. Other Republicans don't have to agree with me on a personal level, but I would hope that they would see the light at some point on a political level (sort of like an Auburn fan acknowledging when Alabama is better than them on-the-field or vice versa regardless of personal opinion). There are significantly bigger fiscal issues to fry and social issues are getting in the way more than ever.

This was a good read.

(04-17-2015 05:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 04:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why? How would what they believe as "social conservatives" render them as a bad candidate? What do you think they would do that you would deem bad or bad for America?

Well, that's easy: personally, I'm not a social conservative at all. I have been more than willing to vote for Republicans that hold socially conservative viewpoints (as I have voted Republican in every Presidential election that I've been eligible to vote in, which goes back to 1996, including voting against Obama twice as a Chicagoan under 40 where such stance isn't nearly as looked at as favorably as it would be in the South, to say the least) because I'm a fiscal conservative that understood the politics of the GOP needing turnout from that wing of the party, but then practically would do little or nothing about socially conservative issues when they actually got voted into office. That was perfectly fine with me in order to ensure that populist economic policies (which politicians have MUCH more control over) didn't get enacted. I get the political game that the Republicans have played from the Reagan through W era, as cynical as that might be. Jeb, Rubio and Christie fall into that category - they'll surely say things that are socially conservative, but I don't believe at all that they'll push that agenda if elected (which is a good thing in my mind).

However, there are certain GOP candidates, such as Rick Santorum in 2012 and Mike Huckabee in 2008, that are explicitly running on social conservative platforms (along with Tea Party candidates that are diving in with them such as Ted Cruz). I won't consider them whatsoever. At the same time, social conservatives can actually affirmatively do damage on the gay rights issue right now. I could hold my nose regarding socially conservative viewpoints when they were just election platitudes for voter turnout efforts and no one attempted to pass any laws about them when they were in office. If they're actively trying to curb gay rights, though, then that's a no go. As much as I agree MUCH more with Republican fiscal policy, I can't sit with a straight face and tell the gay people that I know that I'm fine with them being discriminated against and having less than full rights as long as my taxes are lowered.

If I'm thinking this way as a life-long Republican under the age of 40 whose direct economic self-interest is to vote Republican, then one can imagine what others who don't have the same economic incentives think. Other Republicans don't have to agree with me on a personal level, but I would hope that they would see the light at some point on a political level (sort of like an Auburn fan acknowledging when Alabama is better than them on-the-field or vice versa regardless of personal opinion). There are significantly bigger fiscal issues to fry and social issues are getting in the way more than ever.

IMO, I agree totally that the fiscal issues are far, far more important - for whatever reason Republicans are unable to focus on the fiscal and always allow Democrats to drag the whole conversation to the social issues - always.

Mind boggling really.

(04-17-2015 08:54 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 05:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 04:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Why? How would what they believe as "social conservatives" render them as a bad candidate? What do you think they would do that you would deem bad or bad for America?

Well, that's easy: personally, I'm not a social conservative at all. I have been more than willing to vote for Republicans that hold socially conservative viewpoints (as I have voted Republican in every Presidential election that I've been eligible to vote in, which goes back to 1996, including voting against Obama twice as a Chicagoan under 40 where such stance isn't nearly as looked at as favorably as it would be in the South, to say the least) because I'm a fiscal conservative that understood the politics of the GOP needing turnout from that wing of the party, but then practically would do little or nothing about socially conservative issues when they actually got voted into office. That was perfectly fine with me in order to ensure that populist economic policies (which politicians have MUCH more control over) didn't get enacted. I get the political game that the Republicans have played from the Reagan through W era, as cynical as that might be. Jeb, Rubio and Christie fall into that category - they'll surely say things that are socially conservative, but I don't believe at all that they'll push that agenda if elected (which is a good thing in my mind).

However, there are certain GOP candidates, such as Rick Santorum in 2012 and Mike Huckabee in 2008, that are explicitly running on social conservative platforms (along with Tea Party candidates that are diving in with them such as Ted Cruz). I won't consider them whatsoever. At the same time, social conservatives can actually affirmatively do damage on the gay rights issue right now. I could hold my nose regarding socially conservative viewpoints when they were just election platitudes for voter turnout efforts and no one attempted to pass any laws about them when they were in office. If they're actively trying to curb gay rights, though, then that's a no go. As much as I agree MUCH more with Republican fiscal policy, I can't sit with a straight face and tell the gay people that I know that I'm fine with them being discriminated against and having less than full rights as long as my taxes are lowered.

If I'm thinking this way as a life-long Republican under the age of 40 whose direct economic self-interest is to vote Republican, then one can imagine what others who don't have the same economic incentives think. Other Republicans don't have to agree with me on a personal level, but I would hope that they would see the light at some point on a political level (sort of like an Auburn fan acknowledging when Alabama is better than them on-the-field or vice versa regardless of personal opinion). There are significantly bigger fiscal issues to fry and social issues are getting in the way more than ever.

IMO, I agree totally that the fiscal issues are far, far more important - for whatever reason Republicans are unable to focus on the fiscal and always allow Democrats to drag the whole conversation to the social issues - always.

Mind boggling really.

It's because too many republican legislators don't realize, or care, that what they say affects the part as a whole. In kentucky, running on being harsh against abortion with completely unscientific views wins you votes, but nationally it's a nightmare. Don't kid yourself, watch the RNC, they're not only discussing fiscal issues up there, they're also trying to show just how socially conservative they can be. And it kills the candidates.

Either they nominate a guy who the Republicans really like but has enough baggage to swing against him, or they nominate someone who can't rally the base and they lose based on turnout. Of course this is just late night wholesale speculation though.

(04-17-2015 03:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I would. But I'd prefer Warren or Sanders personally...until something better comes along.

Sadly, I'll be forced to just to keep one of the Republican cancers from getting in there.

In spite of the conservative "wisdom", she might actually be the most qualified candidate we've had to vote for in decades.

Sanders

Ill go ahead and say it....Unless we come up with a Margaret Thatcher type?....Im not voting for any females for POTUS.