First Official GOP President Announcement

Fair enough.

ITT: thinking the income tax is the point

given the current state of inequality in america, it would not surprise me to hear that we could abolish the income tax for everyone making under 2 million a year, tax the rest at 80%, and still generate more revenue than we do now

when people say we should raise taxes on the rich, they usually mean capital gains

anyway, if you have a budget target you need to hit via income tax, raising taxes will ensure you meet it. obviously taxing more income at the same rate is more desirable because it means everybody has more money, but see above

on topic, ted cruz is not a viable presidential candidate; as much as i hate to admit it scott walker has all the money and will trounce his opposition in the primary

walker is the distilled essence of right-wing hatred towards the capacity of labor to organize itself, which is why he will decimate tea partiers and their silly little wedge issues

Which is how you get people who despise the Clintons still considering voting for Hillary if he's the other option in a two-party dominated system.

Andrew Ryan from Bioshock is on line 1.

Edit: DERP, you beat me to it.

Cruz can do a lot of damage to the Scott Walkers and Jeb Bushes of the GOP during the primaries. He's very popular with the base, where Walker is middling, and Bush is unpopular. Cruz isn't likely to make it through the primary, but he's a bulldog, smart, and totally ruthless. Only Rand Paul will occupy *some* positions to the right of Cruz, in all likelihood, so he'll have a conservative ideological edge over most of the field.

None of these guys can win a general election after going through the far right circus that is the Republican primary, of course. That's why I'm surprised to see legitimate candidates like Cruz, Walker, and Bush preparing their campaigns. Cruz is young enough to wait out 8 years of Hillary. Paul Ryan has made that choice, and I think it's the right one. I question how palatable social conservatism will be in 8 years, when the country is already center-left on social issues, but I guess we'll see.


+1 freakin' million

Reagan was the worst president of my lifetime.

You guys think income inequality is bad now, wait until you blindly elect Clinton.

There are zero potential good candidates unless Elizabeth Warren runs, but she'd be ineffective anyhow and probably just manage to fight conservatives in congress to a standstill, which is basically all we have now anyhow.

And I'm not sold on her international strategies anyhow.

No, she's better off in her current position. And even she knows that, much like Ryan on the right.

But yeah. Nothing good is going to happen for anyone with the current crop of candidates.

Bloomberg 2016?

Unemployed? Agreed.

Also Warren is almost as bad.

If you're looking for a female democrat, look to this woman if you must: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsten_Gillibrand

At least she knows how to play both sides to get things done.

"blindly"

i will elect clinton with open eyes, with full understanding that she is the least distasteful of potential viable options

tell me; though i know we probably don't agree on a whole lot politically, what are my alternatives in this post-union world? sure, i'll vote sanders or warren in the democratic primary if they run, but i know they'll lose and i know i'll vote for clinton in the general. you probably did the same thing with romney in 2012.


*** a blue dog

voting for the democratic party's conservative wing is pointless; economically conservative, socially liberal could just as easily be done with a republican president and the current makeup of the supreme court

2012 was the only election I didn't vote. I was too busy earning money overseas.

I voted for Obama in 2008 simply because McCain is a nut job. And that theory has been proved time and time again.

The problem is everyone is being spoon fed candidates. Well except for the liberals. Nobody will say anything until her majesty makes a decision. Kinda sad.

I don't think America can withstand another Democrat though. Hell Obama still has 1.5 years left and already it's falling apart.

okay, I know this ends up being like dogs on a track, but in what way?

I was thinking more like the Idatarod. You just keep talking to yourself/each-other long enough to not die.

Tell Jon Huntsman get in the race. Or Gary Johnson. You know, anyone who doesn't come off as batshit insane.

America can't withstand another Democrat.

Americans can't withstand another Republican.

Maybe we should just all abstain and enjoy watching the world burn.

It's only the collapse of an empire. I got a nice seat here in Serbia if you wanna watch from afar, lol.

Majority of the world will be fine. Even Europe as long as they can get their act together in time.

Love doomsdayers.

Just looking at the candidates from my state alone, I'm facepalming at the prospect of them taking the POTUS.

George Pataki?
Peter King?
and our next door walking Jersey stereotype: Chris Christie?

Is this even real life. Where are the real candidates.

I think the rest of the world would feel plenty of aftershocks and ultimately turn out for the worse, but I also don't think it would be nearly as bad as some diehard MURRICANS think it would be without us, either.

But the bottom line is we're not going anywhere, in truth. The global socioeconomic structure will shift in the years to come, but it was going to do that no matter what, Americans are just going to have to learn that we're a player, not the player. And we have to work with others to set the rules, not dictate them en masse.

Collapse isn't doomsday. It's a massive restructure when the majority of policies fail combined with an ineptitude of any sensible future policies.

Of course there will be riots and some burning of buildings, but nothing too detrimental. At least let's hope so.

Bankruptcy's a ***.

Well, I don't have a word for people that fantasize about collapse, maybe some of those Russians you know do since they are more familiar with it. I still love the entertainment they bring.

Bolshevism. That term refers to the political organization in America since 2008, not the people who 'fantasize about collapse.'

And when that comes to pass, I'll just pay my 5% expatriate tax, like the rest of us "evil wealthy" and leave this country to shambles. Then let's see how fast a budget is balanced when America becomes Greece 2.0.

To be honest, I could just buy an island in the Philippines and create my own country. I saw a decent sized one the other day that's only $3.4 million.

It's already been raised. It went from 15% to 23.8%. You want to raise it even further? Sure, but then don't expect people to invest any money in the US economy.

I could take my money right now, invest it in a company in Japan, and pay a lower tax rate than the US tax rate if the capital rates go any higher. I get the same rate of return, I just don't have as large of a cost associated with it tax-wise. How is that stirring up domestic investing?

That's not the only way to meet a budget. Capping the spending limits also is a way to balance a budget.

Of course, you can also have articles that lie out of their *** to the public and people like Ramyrez would buy into it because it "looks smart."

Can't really be called an organization when you are the only member.

I already conceded there may have been some spin going on there. But there was spin going on in the source documents as well.

But keep on defending our corporate-owned government, because don't worry, they're not going anywhere as much as I want them to.

Actually, there was absolutely no spin in that budget. That state budget is about as realistic as you can have for that state.

Reason behind my stance is that it wasn't the Governor's budget, but the Secretary of State's budget, and they tend to be more realistic (as they see the inlays and outlays more than the governor does).

Something tells me resounding success makes it the Governor's budget whereas failure makes it the Secretary of State's budget.

Which is one of the reasons why I was against that article, it was journalistic dishonesty at best.

Generally speaking, in some cases the Governor takes the SOS's budget and expands on it, and so does the legislative branch of the state government. Texas does that, I'm not 100% about other states.

The SOS's budget is the foundation of the state budgeting process, how the parties change it is up to those parties.

Also as scary a prospect as Lordgrim's Bioshock 3 Columbia.