Magox

People can support whatever they want to support, that's their choice. But you can't credibly say that you are a proponent of small government and then at the same time support a massive entitlement that drastically expands Medicaid and subsidies for health insurance for those that make under $60k a year. The point that he's bringing up has very little to do with what I was saying, he's talking about the clause that allows for people with pre existing medical conditions thats in the ACA. There are many ways of helping solve this issue without having to pass the bill that was passed. There's a difference. Here is one existing solution and it works incredibly well for many people. How about just expanding this program? https://www.pcip.gov/ Even cubans are beginning to vote more Democratic, thanks to the youth. They don't have the same qualms against Castro as their parents do. All one has to do is look at the exit polls of Florida and you will see that Obama lost the cuban vote in the single digits. That is unheard of. Why? Because of the youth.

You said "People are people" and I simply and accurately pointed to you how absurd that comment by providing an example that People aren't simply just people. The younger latino population are becoming a homogenous group, all you have to do is look at the exit polls of the past two elections to see it. Also, you don't believe that the rigid hard liners from the perspective of latinos aren't violating their civil rights. From their perspective, they see the Arizona immigration laws as a shot across the bow against latinos, a form of profiling. I'm not arguing that is the case, but that is the way they perceive things. So again, the point is to be more inclusive to Latinos, or suffer the consequences and become a more left leaning country.

Ok, you go ahead and sell that to the black population.

Obviously you haven't been keeping up with the recent trends. Bush won 43% of the latino vote, at that time, the latino vote made up less than 10% of the total electorate. 2008 McCain won 33% of the total latino vote, which made up close to 13% of the total electorate, and Romney won around 28% of the latino vote, which made up over 15% of the total electorate. That's an increase of 50% for latino turnout relative to the rest of the electorate, and when you look at the sharp drop off in % of Latinos voting for R's, then that is a huge red flag. I spoke about this at length, well before you ever came to this board. I warned the immigration hardliners on this board well before the election, and they didn't want to accept that reality. Well, it happened. Reality is that latinos are going to make up close to a quarter of the electorate within 15 years. Considering not just the growing latino electorate, but the trends for who they've been voting for (The D's), and you couple that with blacks who uniformly vote for D's, you better look to adopt policies, or at the very least become a more inclusive party or the math will catch up, which it already has begun. So yes, demographics do matter and anyone who denies this is denying reality.

Ok, so you deny math.

You can't deny the changing demographics. Or can you?

As long as we continue economic policies centered around social justice (injustices), the economy will never come close to reaching it's potential.

In a fully employed economy, 2.5-3% is acceptable, in an economy with real unemployment through the roof, 2.5-3% is totally unacceptable.

What kind of question is that? What are you exactly asking?

Depends on if it's cost effective or not. Doesn't make sense to build the infrastructure for a mass transit system in a region of the country that isn't either geographically or economically viable. Some of these projects make sense, some don't.

I never implied that you were a leach

Oh I don't know. That is above my pay grade.

Everything is subject to the Laffer Curver. So it's difficult to determine what is the optimal rate. It's not a static figure, what may be the ideal rate for one period in time may not be for another.

You should have used an exclamation mark after your usage of "Fine"

What do you mean we aren't trying? We are attempting this ethanol crap, lowering emissions from vehicles, increasing gas mileage, expanding biofuel usage, wind energy, nuclear etc. Oh, I get it, you mean, we aren't going with Cap and Trade sort of programs to attempt to remedy our Climate issues. Yeah, you're not a big government sort of dude at all.

Oh please. Stop saying that you're one of these folks. You strongly support Obamacare, which massively expands Medicaid and benefits for couples making $60K a year, funded through higher taxation by the wealthy.

The argument wasn't whether or not there would be more revenues as a result of the Clinton era rates, but rather you're argument that higher rates with full employment was the main reason for the Clinton Surplus. You made no mention of the tech bubble stock market rally, capital gains rates, corporate profits, Clinton era reduction of defense spending. You were trying to make the point that because of the higher rates, we got the surplus. Don't try to pretend that is what you weren't trying to do.

You said, the higher rates coupled with growth. Let's not try to pretend you didn't imply that.

I think it's a little bit more than that, the biggest self-serving Climate Defender on this planet, accepting gobs of money from one of the largest (from his view) Climate destroyers. Nope, you don't see the irony in that at all.

No, it means he's a hypocrite. You're not too quick are you?

It will happen, and they already are beginning to. The question is how long will it take for the transition to complete, and how many elections will they lose between now and then.

Yeah, I kinda agree with this. The younger libertarian minded folks could end up being a huge boost for the R's moving forward. However, in order to do this, they have to let go of the Cons and Social goons.

What do you mean? Everything in TPS world is in a vacuum. I mean if Clinton had a surplus and he raised individual income tax rates, then that would surely mean that because of the higher rates it would of had to have led to the surplus. Never mind the fact that spending relative to GDP was down, never mind the fact that we were fully employed, going through a massive and historic stock market run, and that corporate profits and tax receipts were soaring. Nooooo, it was all because of the income tax rates.

I did And yeah yeah I know, I just thought I'd have a little fun with it.

Al Gore, you know the guy who cares about Climate Change, not for any sort of self-serving reasons, nooooo, but for principled reasons, sold his Current TV network to Al Jazeera, you know that network owned by the country of Qatar, one of the highest Oil/GDP ratios in the world, the country that is primarily funded off of that toxic sludgy product that pollutes the air. Yeah, he's a principled man, cares enough about his country to make sure to sell his company off to the air pollutant nation of Qatar right before he would get hit with the new fiscal cliff agreement. A truly principled man.