A Third Party Presidential Bid in 2024?

Lots of irrational, unfounded nonsense in your posting.

First, of course there is Democracy in the Democratic Party. But you are welcome to your unfounded opinion that that is somehow not so.

Second, the USA is already a multi-party country, with two major political parties and lots of little scatterparties, none of which gain traction. Multi means "more than one", just to help cure any ignorance about this.

Third, I have no idea what you mean by multi-candidate play off.

Fourth, the electoral "college" (a term that does not even exist in the US Constitution) was not created to adress the question of taxation and representation. It WAS created to hopefully eliminate the fear that our founding fathers had of "tyranny of the majority". Also, high population states do not drain the resources of the less populated states. In fact, most of the largest, and notably bluest, states pay more in taxes than they get back. The are the giver states, while most red states are actually taker states. Sounds like the red state love themselves some good old socialism, eh. So, the argument you made there is verifiably, patently false.

Fifth, the elector system in the USA has nothing to do with voter fraud.

And yes, I have traversed the USA at least 7 times back and forth thus far in my lifetime. I probably know far, far better than you how big OUR homeland is.

 

I stand by my statement. IMO, you have a middle school idea of the constitution.
Today's democrats are hard at work dismantling the institutions that make America work. Now they are trying to intimidate SCOTUS.
Go ahead and count fringe parties if that is what it takes. They don't end up going anywhere.
Multi candidate play off: I.E. the mix of candidates leading up to the primaries.
EC: it does not matter was it was. What it is now is what counts. By counting the EC it prevents the few blue populous states from running the entire country and sidelining the other 3/4. Straight population votes would mean predation by the blue states.
The economies of blue vs red states are much different. They tax higher but the population is generally poorer.
I think you drive east coast or central north to south. The real America is the fly over states.

 

So, that was enough trolling behavior from you. Bye bye.

 

LMAOROG, Sure if you consider gutting taxes (revenues) as you ramp up spending when their in charge

Ronnie Reagan - "According to later Treasury estimates, it reduced federal revenues by about 9 percent in the first couple of years. In fact, most of the top Reagan administration officials didn't think the tax cut would pay for itself."

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-f...e top rate fell from,cut would pay for itself.


Dubya - The cost of the tax laws enacted during George W. Bush’s administration is equal to roughly 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010, the year the provisions were fully phased in. ''

...''At the time, many policymakers — including President Bush and Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan — cited projected surpluses and falling debt as a reason to cut taxes. But as the nation’s fiscal outlook changed, because the tax cuts were financed by borrowing, they added to a growing national debt.''

''In 2013 CBPP estimated that, when the associated interest costs are taken into account, the Bush tax cuts (including those that policymakers made permanent) would add $5.6 trillion to deficits from 2001 to 2018. This means that the Bush tax cuts will be responsible for roughly one-third of the federal debt owed by 2018.''

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-legacy-of-the-2001-and-2003-bush-tax-cuts

Diaper Donnie - ''At $2.3 trillion cost, Trump tax cuts leave big gap''

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/28/tax-cuts-trump-gop-analysis-430781

Extending Trump Tax Cuts Would Add $3.5 Trillion


05.16.23
Extending Trump Tax Cuts Would Add $3.5 Trillion to the Deficit, According to CBO
New report finds Republicans’ giveaways to the wealthy and large corporations are significantly more costly than previously estimated

Washington, D.C.—According to a report released today by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), extending the Trump tax cuts would add $3.5 trillion to the deficit through 2033

https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/extending-trump-tax-cuts-would-add-35-trillion-to-the-deficit-according-to-cbo#:~:text=CBO's%20previous%20cost%20estimate%20for,assumptions%20about%20spending%20and%20revenues.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE? LOL

 

Pure self serving conjecture from a liberal think tank it was NEVER a revenue problem. Deal with the actual history.

The cost of the tax laws under Bush policy which ended after FY2007 was a HUGE 15% increase in federal revenues. His tax policies were fully implemented in 2004 not 2010.

With that HUGE surge in tax revenues Bush and the Republicans took the deficits down to that paltry $161B. THEN the Dems took back the Congress you are trying to attribute THEIR policies to Bush, that's folly.

The interest on the Dems who two years after that measly $161B defict took it to $1,400B and kept it over $1,000B for the next three....that interest?
Diaper Donnie - ''At $2.3 trillion cost, Trump tax cuts leave big gap''

And as usual CBO got it wrong, they use static projection models rather than dynamic, why do you keep posting postulations and suppositions post the ACTUAL NUMBERS. We have the historical record as to the effects of tax rates on tax revenues in our economy.

They paid HUGELY more in tax revenues and a higher share of the tax burden.

Tell me in these budget negotiations right now which side is demanding cuts and spending and lowering the deficits and debt and which side is fighting tooth and nail to get unlimited debt ceiling increases so they can continue to increase spending and deficits?

 

LMAOROG, Keep up your charade, that's why treasury, CBO, etc has to score it as revenues lost right?

Laffer's curve has a left AND A RIGHT SIDE CORRECT? When have we been on the right side?

US lost more tax revenue than any other developed country in 2018 due to Trump tax cuts, new report says

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/05/us-tax-revenue-dropped-sharply-due-to-trump-tax-cuts-report.html

 

So the Democrats are asking for tax increases to lose revenues? That's your premise? lol

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not “Credible,” Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves.

Mankiw's 2005 Paper: “In Almost All Cases, Tax Cuts Are Partly Self-Financing.”

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: “I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves.”

Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: “As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves.”

Bush OMB Director Nussle: “Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme.”

Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: “As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves.”


Bush Economic Adviser Samwick: “Tax Cuts Have Not Fueled Record Revenues.”

You [in the Bush administration] are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one. [Vox Baby, 1/3/07]

 

Don't look now, but you continue to misinform

Economists measure revenues via GDP, you know this, to account for inflation and population increases

Ronnie, Dubya and Diaper Donnie tax cuts that mainly benefited the richest, gutted revenues!

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

 

They only people we have to blame is ourselves for electing leaders who only look forward to the next election, and buy votes with "free stuff".
https://www.usdebtclock.org

 

Any tax cut will disproportionately benefit high earners because they pay most of the taxes.

 

So you agree, tax cuts which cost US revenues, mainly the richest (over 80% of benefits go to top 5%) benefit, is a waste as it simply drives up the deficits while not creating more economic benefits

 

All Americans are undertaxed, so rich and poor alike need to pay more.
The idea that revenues can be increased by targeted tax rate reductions is an old one, going back to the "scientific taxation" of the Harding and Coolidge administrations.

 

Sure, both equally undertaxed *shaking head*

For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-obama-says-tax-rates-are-lowest-1950s-ceos-/

• The richest 1% of Americans own 35% of the nation’s wealth. The bottom 80% own just 11% of the nation’s wealth.

• The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014; someone making an average of $75,000 is paying a 19.7% rate.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org...-booklet/fact-sheet-taxing-wealthy-americans/

 

So what?
Our perpetual deficits are proof that our revenues are insufficient. Therefore, Americans are undertaxed. As for who pays what:



Who Pays Income Taxes? - Foundation

National Taxpayers Union
https://www.ntu.org › foundation › tax-page › who-pa...



Altogether, the top fifty percent of filers earned 89 percent of all income and were responsible for 97.7 percent of all income taxes paid in 2020. The other ...

 

Well if you gut revenues from where Carter/Clinton had them (20% of GDP) to where Ronnie (16.5%), Dubya (15%) and Diaper Donnie (16%) took them, you'll agree it's a REVENUE problem (as Ronnie, Dubya AND Diaper Donnie greatly increased spending)

I get it though, those lazy people at the bottom are paying enough in taxes

Low-income Americans face higher payroll tax rates than rich Americans. Americans with less than five-figure incomes pay an effective payroll tax rate of 14.1 percent, while those making seven-figure incomes or more pay just 1.9 percent.

https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...ericans face higher,more pay just 1.9 percent.

Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers

...When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent

https://www.cbpp.org/research/misconceptions-and-realities-about-who-pays-taxes

 

1. I am not opposed to deficit spending in principle. It is a useful tool in fighting recession and achieving specific goals. Reagan won the Cold War that way.
2. But our deficits are perpetual and not tied to any policy goal. Therefore we need more revenue. The rich should pay more, but no one, not even the poor, should pay nothing.
3. Federal income tax is the tool at hand. I'm not interested in (or persuaded by) aggregating peoples' payments to make a case for avoiding federal income tax.

 

The only US tax that is barely progressive? BTW that federal income tax is only 50% pf all US taxes, and most who don't pay it are disabled, old (already paid) or students (who will pay)

But yes worry about the bottom 80% of US who have 13% of the wealth, lol

 

Weird, my history degree says it was 45+ years of successive US and Western European policy that did that. Ronnie's deficits were mainly driven by his tax cuts to the rich that he had to claw back....

 

The US is a common enterprise, and that requires a commitment from everyone. I do not think it is unfair to ask a minimum contribution from all when we ask a substantial increase from our most fortunate citizens.

 

Your degree was inadequate.

"He stunned the Soviet Union with his tough rhetoric, calling it an “evil empire” whose leaders gave themselves the “right to commit any crime.”

His famed “Star Wars” program drew the Soviets into a costly arms race it couldn’t afford. His 1987 declaration to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev at the Berlin Wall — “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” — was the ultimate challenge of the Cold War.

Ronald Reagan’s determination to destroy communism and the Soviet Union was a hallmark of his eight-year presidency, carried out through a harsh nuclear policy toward Moscow that softened only slightly when Gorbachev came to office.

He is vividly remembered in Russia today as the force that precipitated the Soviet collapse.

“Reagan bolstered the U.S. military might to ruin the Soviet economy, and he achieved his goal,” said Gennady Gerasimov, who served as top spokesman for the Soviet Foreign Ministry during the 1980s. . . .

“Reagan’s SDI was a very successful blackmail,” Gerasimov told The Associated Press. “The Soviet Union tried to keep up pace with the U.S. military buildup, but the Soviet economy couldn’t endure such competition.”. . . "

In Russia, Reagan rememberedfor helping bring down ...
https://www.nbcnews.com › wbna5145921


Jun 5, 2004 — Ronald Reagan's determination to destroy communism and the Soviet Union ... “Reagan and Gorbachev helped end the Cold War,” Gerasimov said.

 

to be fair, both Trump and Biden are elderly old men showing their age, neither should be running

 

Top 50% of income
Share of Total Adjusted Gross Income 89.8%

So the bottom 50% of US make a whopping 10.2% of ALL US INCOME

AND THEIR NOT PAYING THEIR SHARE OF THE HALF OF ALL US TAXES?? LOL

https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/

 

the only way Trump can win is if people don't vote

 

So it wasn't that communism is a failed system, it's that Ronnie beat them down? lol

Yes, Reagan entered office embracing a bombastic, confrontational approach to the Soviet Union. He also went on a massive defense spending spree which – in the wake of enormous tax cuts for the wealthy – led to staggering increases in federal debt. But then things changed dramatically. Following a series of summit meetings with Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev, Reagan softened his stance toward the Soviet Union.

Indeed, most Americans are unaware that Reagan recanted his description of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire,” dismissing his confrontational rhetoric as a relic of “another time, another era.”

In a remarkable scene that some arch-conservatives seem to have forgotten, Reagan warmly embraced Gorbachev as the two world leaders casually chatted with cheering Soviet citizens while strolling through Moscow’s Red Square.

Far too many contemporary conservatives also conveniently forget that Reagan took enormous flak from his own hard-right flank in response to his diplomatic overtures to Gorbachev. According to George Will, Reagan’s embrace of Gorbachev “accelerated the moral disarmament of the West.” William F. Buckley blasted Reagan, claiming that his shift from confrontation to diplomacy amounted to “changing our entire position toward Adolf Hitler.” How spectacularly wrong they were.

Indeed, many conservative commentators would prefer to sweep these historical nuances under the rug. These realities also directly contradict a deeply ideological (and ahistorical) narrative that – short of war – massive defense buildups, bellicosity and tough talk bring authoritarian regimes to their knees.

With access to thousands of pages of Soviet records, oral histories and memoirs, we now know that the confrontational approach that defined Reagan’s first few years in office had very little, if any, impact on Soviet strategic decisionmaking. In fact, the antagonism of Reagan’s early presidency likely prolonged the Cold War by elevating hardline, anti-American voices over those of moderate reformers like Gorbachev.

Reagan’s true Cold War legacy is rooted in his deeply personal diplomatic engagement with Gorbachev. Reagan’s embrace of Gorbachev and praise for his reforms gave the Soviet leader the latitude to enact the political and social changes – perestroika, glasnost, demokratizatsiya – that ultimately caused the collapse of the Soviet Union.

...Another common refrain among conservatives is that Reagan simply “outspent” the Soviets. But Soviet defense spending remained flat throughout the 1980s. More significantly, Gorbachev was unalterably opposed to increasing military spending; he fought a relentless campaign by the Soviet military-industrial complex to spend exorbitant sums in response to Reagan’s buildup.

https://thehill.com/opinion/interna...vising-history-reagan-didnt-win-the-cold-war/


THE MYTH YOU GUYS CREATE

 

‘MAXIMUM PRESSURE BROUGHT DOWN THE SOVIET UNION’ AND OTHER LIES WE TELL OURSELVES

What U.S. leaders actually did for more than four decades after World War II was grudgingly accept that they had to coexist with the Soviet Union, contain it by maintaining significant military power and strong alliances in Europe and Asia, demonstrate the superiority of capitalism and freedom, and patiently wait until the Soviet leadership realized that its system was failing and had to change. It finally did so in 1985, nominating the young Mikhail Gorbachev as general secretary of the Communist Party, and the result was the largely peaceful end of the Cold War, the liberation of numerous “captive nations,” and ultimately the decline of the Soviet Union itself — all without extensive civil conflict among Soviets or direct military conflict with the West. But this outcome was not the result of a U.S. policy of regime change. If U.S. policy in the Cold War is going to inform policy choices today, it is important to understand what that policy actually was.
https://warontherocks.com/2020/10/m...oviet-union-and-other-lies-we-tell-ourselves/