A Third Party Presidential Bid in 2024?

Our government strengthens its moral authority to demand more from the wealthy by ensuring that everyone is called upon to contribute.

 

You seem unaware that you have made my point. The Soviet leadership turned to Gorbachev (and perestroika and glasnost) in an attempt to tweak better performance out of the Soviet economy to bear the burden of Cold War competition. Neither the Politburo nor Gorbachev personally had the slightest idea of the corrosive power of the forces they thereby unleashed. Gorbachev blundered his state into destruction; that's his contribution. We lived in Berlin for several years. Our German friends put it succinctly: If no Reagan then no Gorbachev.
That Reagan changed his tone toward Gorbachev should be no surprise. Reagan was getting what he wanted (and had to a large degree brought about) and had every incentive to encourage Gorbachev along the path that led to the dissolution of the USSR. In the Reagan-Gorbachev relationship only one of them knew what he was doing.

 

Please see #102.

 

The debt to GDP is just one ratio and does not reflect the direct of or total debt. It's the ACTUAL that matters. Lack of rebuttal noted try again.

 

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

Too bad he didn't wait until the results came it. We hit record capital gains tax revenues at the Bush 15% rate than the Clinton 29% rate.

We hit RECORD tax revenue increase under the Bush tax rate cut and with the spending restraint the deficit fell to measly $161B what exactly is your complaint here?

 

the rich pay less tax per dollar they earn in taxes than the middle class pays per dollar they earn

why does the rich need to be rewarded for making more dollars, is not the making of more dollars reward enough?

 

The rich already pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes, and no one objects to that. I believe that the rich, and everyone else, need to pay more.

 

they pay less tax per dollar then the middle class

just cause they make more total tax dollars doesn't mean they pay more tax per dollar they earn

if you go to a store and spend $100 and I spend $1000, doesn't mean I should get a sales tax cut cause I spent more dollars.... same with earning more dollars

 

I question your figures. Looks to me like the tax/AGI share ratio of the wealthy (far right column) punctures your point.

 

nothing in your table about the pennies per dollar the rich pay vs the pennies per dollar the middle class pay - both can be true

 

As you wish.

 

That's not a 3rd party candidate. That's a uniparty candidate.

Pass for a real 3rd party like the libertarian party which has recently had some leadership shakeups that seem promising.

 

More right wing mythology on Ronnie, lol

AND NO HIS TAX CUTS DIDN'T BRING IN MORE REVENUES, WHICH IS WHY HE HAD TO CONTINUALLY 'TWEAK' THEM BECAUSE OF DEFICITS!

 

Keep up you myths, it's ALL you have

$161 billion deficit? Oh you mean after BJ Bill, the best conservative Prez since Ike handed him 4 straight surpluses, he was able to reduce his deficts by his "home ownership society" ponzi scheme which was all a house of cards, which collapsed?

APRIL 23, 2007

U.S. spending may have been lifted by close to 3 percent a year in recent years as owners tapped the enhanced values of their homes for cash, according to a paper coauthored by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.

Greenspan, who departed the helm of the U.S. central bank on January 31, 2006, wrote the paper with Fed economist James Kennedy to study how the booming practice of home equity extraction -- raising cash by borrowing against surging house prices -- might effect the U.S. economy.

The market value of U.S. owner-occupied homes has more than doubled in value to $18 trillion in the last decade and the paper sees a multibillion dollar benefit to U.S. spending.

“From 1991 to 2000, equity extraction financed an average of 0.6 percent of total PCE (personal consumption expenditure), but since then that share has risen to almost 1-3/4 percent,” they noted in the paper, released by the Fed on Monday.

This climbs even more if the net is widened to capture the indirect impact on spending of home equity finance used to pay down nonmortgage debt like credit card bills -- on the basis that these were really bridge finance for spending anyway.

“...By this broader measure of PCE funding, equity extraction financed 1.1 percent of PCE from 1991 to 2000 and close to 3 percent from 2001 to 2005,” Greenspan and Kennedy said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-equity-loans-greenspan-idUSN2330071920070423

 

What are you talking about? I was pointing out ECONOMISTS MEASURE REVENUES USING GDP TO ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION AND POPULATION GAINS, Unlike static numbers right wingers use to LIE about revenues

Debt? lol

 

• The CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (EGTRRA) and 2003 (JGTRRA) added approximately $1.5 trillion total to the debt over the 2002–2011 decade, excluding interest.

A 2006 Treasury Department study estimated that the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue by approximately 1.5% GDP on average for each of the first four years of their implementation, an approximately 6% annual reduction in revenue relative to a baseline without those tax cuts. The study did not extend the analysis beyond the first four years of implementation.

 

Now you've been reduced to mere denial. It is not sufficient to simply try to wave away the historical record.

 

True, Ronnie tripled the debt as he gutted taxes on the richest, and increased them on the working man. He also sold arms for hostages and broke US laws with Iran/Contra, only Poppy saved him and his admin

The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by numerous scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any president in American history.

The most well-known and politically damaging of the scandals came to light since Watergate was in 1986, when Ronald Reagan conceded that the United States had sold weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran, as part of a largely unsuccessful effort to secure the release of six U.S. citizens being held hostage in Lebanon. It was also disclosed that some of the money from the arms deal with Iran had been covertly and illegally funneled into a fund to aid the right-wing Contras counter-revolutionary groups seeking to overthrow the socialist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

The investigations were effectively halted when Reagan's vice-president and successor, George H. W. Bush pardoned Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger before his trial began

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals

 

* The U.S. Treasury Department?

JonK22 said: ↑
...
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."


I would have gone further, but I see that all you are doing, is disputing @JonK22 's, actually sourced & quoted, fiscal statistics, with nothing but your own say so.

Let's see, do I trust the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, for quoting hard facts, like when all of Bush's tax cuts were phased in, or your completely unsupported assertions?... hmm... that's quite the head scratcher.

Not worth the bother, to dispute someone who accepts his own beliefs on every matter, as infallibly correct, without any corroboration.

 

My take on this is becoming more and more solid:

the GOP is heading toward a bruising primary season with their leading candidate, an indicted criminal defendant and sexual abuser, still clearly in the lead while facing yet more indictments and already guaranteed a civil trial in October 2023 and a criminal trial starting in the fourth week of March, 2024, so no matter whom you favor if you are a Republican, it's going to be by far the nastiest slog of the ages within that party itself and based on everything we know about criminal defendant Donald Trump's behavior, he is not going down without torching the entire party with him.

He has successfully converted a once great national party into a band of criminal thugs, Q-anon conspirary freaks, white christian nationalist trash, women haters (abortion issue), nazis and other assorted jew haters, gay haters, cop haters, FBI haters, CIA haters, SS haters, the whole gamut.

This means that in order to secure the nomination within a party that has become an absolute abomination, the prospective nominee must say and do things that will destroy him among the general electorate, esp among independents, come November 2024. It also means that Trump will have to spend oodles of money to even secure the nomination, even if it means doing it from a jail cell, which means that he will first have to rake in money for the general AFTER the convention. Should Ron DeSantis get the nod, same story. Trump will not let him win without stripping Mr. Don't say Gay of every penny he can in the process. Either way, the GOP leaves the primaries and enters the General election season with a massive financial deficit compared to the Ds.

And should Ron DeSantis get the nod, then I bet that around 8% more of the electorate on election night will cast write-in votes for Trump. This is the hardcore, die-or-do crowd that only worships the Donald and will cast their vote for noone else.

Meanwhile, President Biden, the duly and fairly elected 46th POTUS, will have no serious primary challenge, will not have to sink money into primaries and can therefore already buy media market slots for the GE as early as March 2024. By May 2008, Obama had bought up almost all of the Chicago media market, there was nothing left for McCain to buy. And Obama, if you will recall, picked up Indiana in that cycle.

If the GOP puts itself through the meat-grinder, as I assume will happen, then Biden will pretty much win every state he won in 2020 and pick up NC, TX, maybe KS and AK, possibly even SC. Instead of winning PA by +1.2%, it will be more like +12%. Even OH and IA could end up on the table again as the 8% write-in for Trump would be enough to ruin it for DeSantis in a number of key states.

Is there a possibility that enough people will watch this **** show on the Right who are also leery of Biden on the Left and they could go for a third party? Sure, of course, but it would not strip off enough of the Democratic base to cause Ds to lose.

Alone with abortion as a front-and-center issue, I expect the Ds to pick up close to +50 seats in the HOR in 2024, completely irrespective of the presidential results. Mark my words, bookmark this posting, remind me of this in November 2024. The Ds are going to retake the House in big fashion in 2024. The Senate will remain in Democratic hands.

-Stat

 

So what? You are flailing because you were refuted on the point under discussion.

 

People like to talk about 3rd parties, but in the end they always pull for one of the 2 parties, and often only to oppose one candidate rather than supporting one.

 

If we get a Trump v Biden replay then I will certainly vote third party.

 

I am a 3rd party voter and my candidates have never won office, so in a sense its as good as not voting at all.

 

I do not want to be recorded as supporting either Trump or Biden in 2024.