The New American Politics thread

[nik-]

This really is shaping up towards the horrifying conclusion of Ted Cruz being the GOP nominee

[Mr.Coffee]

Nm

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by 110%

Louisiana has state and local sales tax rates in the highest 10% of all US states. Also, in terms of state income tax rates their rates are in the highest 30% of all US states. But I guess tax more because thats been working pretty well for them so far...

What are your sources for this? I see that the sales tax is pretty high (mostly because of hefty local taxes, not state), but various sources have Louisiana listed around 10th lowest for income taxes for median wage earners.

Regardless, the real issues with respect to Jindal and what has happened there seem to be with corporate taxes - especially tax breaks and various credit schemes.

So are you actually arguing that Louisiana should be lowering taxes?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

What are your sources for this? I see that the sales tax is pretty high (mostly because of hefty local taxes, not state), but various sources have Louisiana listed around 10th lowest for income taxes for median wage earners.

Regardless, the real issues with respect to Jindal and what has happened there seem to be with corporate taxes - especially tax breaks and various credit schemes.

So are you actually arguing that Louisiana should be lowering taxes?

It looks like even his fellow Republicans are fed up with Jindal and his ideologue ways. It seems to be a common problem with GOP governors.

Republicans like state Representative Jay Morris, who, after hearing Jindal’s vow to veto any measure that didn’t have Norquist’s blessing, declared the approach “insane.” And like state Senator Jack Donahue, who chairs the Finance Committee and who passed a bill last year seeking to determine how much the state spends on tax exemptions, only to watch Jindal veto it.
And perhaps most tellingly, the Republicans running to replace Jindal in this fall’s election. All three—Lieutenant Governor Jay Dardenne, U.S. Senator David Vitter and Public Service Commissioner (and former Jindal aide) Scott Angelle—say they will look for a way to accept the Medicaid money and take an open-minded approach to examining tax exemptions.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-bobby-ji...economy-337999

[110%]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

What are your sources for this? I see that the sales tax is pretty high (mostly because of hefty local taxes, not state), but various sources have Louisiana listed around 10th lowest for income taxes for median wage earners.

Regardless, the real issues with respect to Jindal and what has happened there seem to be with corporate taxes - especially tax breaks and various credit schemes.

So are you actually arguing that Louisiana should be lowering taxes?

Not at all. I'm saying mismanagement by the government appears to be the major cause for this and not excessively low taxes.

I just googled some stats because I was interested and did a quick look through things. I have no idea if my conclusions are accurate but I dont think they are that far off. I was looking through taxfoundation.org

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by peter12

Even Mussolini isn't close to an accurate comparison. Not even a little bit.

The comparison to Mussolini is in relation to how they give speeches and the way that they delivered there messages.

You can't make the comparison in terms of actual actions taken by each person since Trump dosen't have any actual power.



http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...ists-dictators

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...que-pena-nieto

[littlereddevil]

Choosing between Trump and Cruz is like deciding what you'd rather have: cancer or a stroke

[RougeUnderoos]

Here's a video of a 1980 Republican debate. It's GHW Bush and Reagan going head to head on how to deal with the Mexican border and illegal aliens.

http://boingboing.net/2016/03/07/two...onald-rea.html

Bush says if people are in America, they have to get the same things (like education) as their neighbours, and that Mexicans are good, strong, hardworking, family-oriented people.

Reagan says that while they are in the country, they should pay taxes, and that they should be able to go back and forth. Also, that Mexico has significant problems, and it's in America's best interest to make sure they don't get worse.

They both recognize the labor issue.

The contrast here isn't only in their (I would assume) "conservative" answers at the time, but at how the debate actually happens. They act, and speak, like adults, with actual thoughtful answers instead of rehearsed one-liners, insults, interruptions, shouting, eyerolling, and all the other good stuff we get today.

Hmm. I think I just wrote a "remember the good old days with Reagan and Bush" post.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Here's a video of a 1980 Republican debate. It's GHW Bush and Reagan going head to head on how to deal with the Mexican border and illegal aliens.

http://boingboing.net/2016/03/07/two...onald-rea.html

Bush says if people are in America, they have to get the same things (like education) as their neighbours, and that Mexicans are good, strong, hardworking, family-oriented people.

Reagan says that while they are in the country, they should pay taxes, and that they should be able to go back and forth. Also, that Mexico has significant problems, and it's in America's best interest to make sure they don't get worse.

They both recognize the labor issue.

The contrast here isn't only in their (I would assume) "conservative" answers at the time, but at how the debate actually happens. They act, and speak, like adults, with actual thoughtful answers instead of rehearsed one-liners, insults, interruptions, shouting, eyerolling, and all the other good stuff we get today.

Hmm. I think I just wrote a "remember the good old days with Reagan and Bush" post.

Yeah, to me now when I watch the debates, and I'm including the democrats, I feel that these people are really just making a$$es of themselves.

To me not one of these candidates on either side is what I'd call Presidential, or someone that I think would be able to conduct the business of government.

Even Hillary has fallen into the snark trap.

The debates are like watching a terrible sit com, I keep waiting for a can I get a oh snap. Or an in your face celebration, or even better a profanity laced diatribe.

But its coming, maybe not in this election, but soon as we become a more hash tag dependant market society.

#Talktothehand

#ohsnapbyatch

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah, to me now when I watch the debates, and I'm including the democrats, I feel that these people are really just making a$$es of themselves.

To me not one of these candidates on either side is what I'd call Presidential, or someone that I think would be able to conduct the business of government.

Even Hillary has fallen into the snark trap.

The debates are like watching a terrible sit com, I keep waiting for a can I get a oh snap. Or an in your face celebration, or even better a profanity laced diatribe.

But its coming, maybe not in this election, but soon as we become a more hash tag dependant market society.

#Talktothehand

#ohsnapbyatch

Fallen into? She was molded in the snark trap, others merely adopted it.

[CaptainCrunch]

I was trying to be polite like

[Senator Clay Davis]

It is pretty hilarious that we're now at the point that Trump looks like a significantly better option than any other candidate. But Cruz is just another level of awful, the Christian Taliban level of awful. I've pretty much gotten off "Trump as a plant candidate", but if he is it's for Cruz because all of Trump's media hogging has veiled people as to what a crazy person Cruz is.

Tonight looking like a dud too, Trump and Hillary way up in the polls. Be interesting to see where Rubio ends up because some projections have him close to single digits. That would be a new low even for that campaign.

[octothorp]

Predictions for today?

Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, and Michigan go on the Republican side, while just the latter two go on the Democrat side.

Hawaii has had zero polls this cycle, Idaho just one, Mississippi two.
Hawaii did go strongly establishment last time around so I'd expect Rubio to do okay there. Trump's message tends to do better in economically struggling states, and Hawaii seems relatively strong.
Idaho went establishment as well, but it's difficult to parse out how much of that was a local advantage for Romney. I think Trump fits the state's independent streak, while Cruz probably appeals strongest amongst the LDS population. Given that it's closed, I expect a narrow race between Cruz and Trump. I'm going to predict Cruz with the upset here.
In Mississippi Trump polled well in the one recent poll and it seems like an ideological fit for him, although after how close Louisiana was, this could be similarly close. Unlike Louisiana, this is an open primary, so I think Trump probably wins by a solid 10 point margin.
Michigan is where most of the polling in the last week has been, so we've got a better picture there than anywhere else, and that picture is of Trump starting with a wide lead, Kasich with huge momentum (up 15 points in RCP's aggregate in less than a week), but still well behind Trump's numbers.

Ultimately Mississippi and Michigan will get the most attention because they are the largest contests. Certainly, they will give us a look at whether Trump's having trouble building any momentum. But I think the fact that they are open primaries is a major factor in parsing their meaning: after today only 4 states have fully open contests. Another 8 have semi-closed, and 16 have fully closed contests. Trump still needs to show he can win (or at least beat expectations) in closed events.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Here's a video of a 1980 Republican debate. It's GHW Bush and Reagan going head to head on how to deal with the Mexican border and illegal aliens.

http://boingboing.net/2016/03/07/two...onald-rea.html

Bush says if people are in America, they have to get the same things (like education) as their neighbours, and that Mexicans are good, strong, hardworking, family-oriented people.

Reagan says that while they are in the country, they should pay taxes, and that they should be able to go back and forth. Also, that Mexico has significant problems, and it's in America's best interest to make sure they don't get worse.

They both recognize the labor issue.

The contrast here isn't only in their (I would assume) "conservative" answers at the time, but at how the debate actually happens. They act, and speak, like adults, with actual thoughtful answers instead of rehearsed one-liners, insults, interruptions, shouting, eyerolling, and all the other good stuff we get today.

Hmm. I think I just wrote a "remember the good old days with Reagan and Bush" post.

It's been said before, but if he were alive (and under 105 years old), Ronald Reagan would not stand a chance in this primary campaign. Eisenhower and Nixon would have dropped out months ago.

One characteristic I attributed to American culture when I was young is a revulsion for bullies and bullying. I may have been accurate, and American attitudes have changed such that a large percentage today respect and admire bullies, or I was wrong and such admiration to this extent was always there, today they just have a medium (tv, social media) to show it.

But the tens of millions of Americans who today respect and admire blatant bullies and consider bullying a positive behavior is a bad look for the country. Just look at any comments section of any media source. From Genie Bouchard being a primadonna to Erin Andrews being a slut.

[Swift]

I think it comes down to a complete dumbing down in US culture. I watched a documentary on Netflix recently called Best of Enemies, which portrayed the pundit debates between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr. Two very eloquent pundits going at each other, and it was one of the highest rated programmes of the year. Even when I watch old US chat shows like Dick Cavett on youtube, I'm surprised at how smart they are with interesting discussions on various topics.

Now, everybody in the media panders to the lowest of the low intellectually and everybody suffers for it. And with increasingly vocal idiots having their voices heard on social media, politicians have begun pandering to the nation's dumbest ideas.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

I think it comes down to a complete dumbing down in US culture. I watched a documentary on Netflix recently called Best of Enemies, which portrayed the pundit debates between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr. Two very eloquent pundits going at each other, and it was one of the highest rated programmes of the year. Even when I watch old US chat shows like Dick Cavett on youtube, I'm surprised at how smart they are with interesting discussions on various topics.

Now, everybody in the media panders to the lowest of the low intellectually and everybody suffers for it. And with increasingly vocal idiots having their voices heard on social media, politicians have begun pandering to the nation's dumbest ideas.

This is actually a result of de/un regulated media and entertainment industries.

The American people don't want this, they just have no choice in the matter.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is actually a result of de/un regulated media and entertainment industries.

The American people don't want this, they just have no choice in the matter.

I don't think a regulated media would solve the problem. It would certainly create many more

[nik-]

I think regulated news media would fix a lot of problems. What "many more" would it create?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think regulated news media would fix a lot of problems. What "many more" would it create?

Depends on who's regulating it.

Centralized media: Government steers the message.
Private-owned media: Private interest steers the message.

There are good an bad in both scenarios.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think regulated news media would fix a lot of problems. What "many more" would it create?

Regulation of news media is censorship. That's a difficult sword to steer correctly. Not to mention breaking the first amendment