Recommended Posts

Sneaky Clinton Campaign.

To beat Trump they need to break free of the sense of a continuation of the Obama presidency.  But they can't do this very much at all because they NEED to keep Obama - without him the minority vote will be diminished.  What to do?  Can't stay with Obama, and can't leave him.  Have to move to the middle more, but how to hold onto the left?

Also, they need break free of the establishment mantle.  And they need to make her "young" at least in the sense of focusing on the future.  And people are really unhappy with the way things are, so they need to promise change.  But how can they promise change without dissing Obama?  They also need to make her more lovable.

So, they are casting Hillary as a change agent.  They painted her as a tireless worker who went out and helped people.  And the message is that she really cares, that she was extremely effective in changing peoples lives and that changes she started are still having effect today.  She was the lone person, the outsider, who was going into the hills of Arkansas to help poor children.  She bucked the system, convinced the establishment, got them to implement programs.

Obama ran on Hope and Change.  Here goes Hillary, remaking that change in a way that skips around the issue of being Obama's third term, goes right around it to the individual people and says I'll be your change agent.  She goes around the problem of noticing that none of the programs and policies proposed have been tried, are old, and failed.  The locus of wonderfulness is inside of Hillary - who should have a cape that says "Change Agent."  She is painted as energetic, a problem solver, her experience is about getting things done - change things - and suddenly she gets all lovable.  Obama's policies and legacy aren't threatened. 
---------------

They are also going with the statement that the Hillary that the GOP talk about is just made up, and that it isn't the real Hillary.  What we (the Hillary campaign) tell you about Hillary, that's the real Hillary.  This is a real big lie - just a blanket disavowal - and it will work really well with those that want her to not be a really bad choice.  It is like saying, "No one could be that corrupt, that unlikable, that dishonest, and that incompetent.... so, it must be all made up."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4617

  • Peter

    1434

  • Jon Letendre

    1316

  • Brant Gaede

    884

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

They see suave, debonair Frisco giving a philosophically deep money speech, or John Galt taking over a radio presentation and addressing the audience in the manner of a professor. If they don't see th

Posted Images

10 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

So, they are casting Hillary as a change agent.

Steve,

What we are witnessing right now is the third stage of the con scheme Dinesh D'Souza portrayed in Hillary's America. I saw that film this weekend. I was surprised at how good it was as a film, not just the partisan stuff.

The con algorithm goes like this:

1. Plan
2. Recruit
3. Pitch
4. Execute
5. Cover up (and deny, deny, deny...)

We're seeing the pitch stage. And they're split-testing the pitches.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

RC-blog-debt-added-649x376.jpg

St. Ronald paved the road to this debacle.  On top of that he invited and solicited the participation of the Evangelicals into Republican politics.  All things have a beginning.  This particular  trip was initiated by St.  Ronald (Mr.  Morning in America). Prince Obama  was simply walking (nay running) along the path plowed by others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That's all right.

The train is going to crash right into this:

07.27.2016-08.43.png

The boondoggle party is over. 

:)

Michael

Possibly. We will know for sure by the first Thursday in November....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

St. Ronald paved the road to this debacle

Baal, it is hard to tell where you are coming from.  That last post would be well designed as the bait for trolling if someone wanted to make people upset, and stir the pot.  It also seems to be filled with anger - the kind of anger that progressives hold towards Reagan.  And, the ideological content is what would come from a progressive.  What is missing are facts (and I thought you were big on facts.) 

=== Some Tax History ====
 
Woodrow Wilson gives us the Income Tax
 - Raises the top rate from 7% to almost 80%
Warren G. Harding
 - Lowers it from 73% to 58%
Calvin Coolidge
 - Lowers it from 58% to 25%
Herbert Hoover starts a depression with his taxes and tariffs
 - Raises it from 25% to 63%
FDR
 - Raises top rate to 94%
Truman
 - Keeps the taxes high
Ike
 - Keeps the taxes high, but pays off the war debt
JFK promises lower taxes, but is killed
 
LBJ forced to implement JFK's promise
 - First lowers them to 70%
 - Later raises them to about 77%
Nixon gave us inflation when he killed off the remains of the gold standard
 - Lowered taxes back to 70%
Ford
 - Left the top rate at 70%
Carter
 - Left the top rate at 70%
Reagan
 - Lowers the top rate from 70% to 28%
-----------------
 
=== Some Reagan History ===
 
During Reagan's time in office:
 
In the personal income tax code the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70% to 28%
 
He lifted the remaining price controls that existed on oil
 
He lowered the oil windfall profits
 
He reduced federal spending as a share of GDP from 20.2% to 19.2%
 
Under Reagan, the U.S. Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) (Pub.L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 - simplified the tax code, decreased the top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%  (Reagan wanted a flat tax of 28% but couldn't get it passed.)  It increased the mortgage deduction.
 
Total tax revenues increased in absolute terms because it stimulated the economy (the average person paid less)
 
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Pub.L. 97-34), also known as the ERTA or "Kemp-Roth Tax Cut," was a federal law enacted in the United States in 1981.   The top rate went from 70% to 50% and the bottom rate went from 14% to 11%.  Estate taxes started at $600k instead of $175k.  Allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs.  Also put in accelerated depreciation. Created 10% exclusion on income for two earner couples.  Capital gains tax was reduced from 28% to 20%.
 
After peaking in 1986 at $221 billion the deficit fell to $152 billion by 1989 and the the government's total tax receipts did rise despite the lower tax rates.  Individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Baal, it is hard to tell where you are coming from.  That last post would be well designed as the bait for trolling if someone wanted to make people upset, and stir the pot.  It also seems to be filled with anger - the kind of anger that progressives hold towards Reagan.  And, the ideological content is what would come from a progressive.  What is missing are facts (and I thought you were big on facts.) 

=== Some Tax History ====
 
Woodrow Wilson gives us the Income Tax
 - Raises the top rate from 7% to almost 80%
Warren G. Harding
 - Lowers it from 73% to 58%
Calvin Coolidge
 - Lowers it from 58% to 25%
Herbert Hoover starts a depression with his taxes and tariffs
 - Raises it from 25% to 63%
FDR
 - Raises top rate to 94%
Truman
 - Keeps the taxes high
Ike
 - Keeps the taxes high, but pays off the war debt
JFK promises lower taxes, but is killed
 
LBJ forced to implement JFK's promise
 - First lowers them to 70%
 - Later raises them to about 77%
Nixon gave us inflation when he killed off the remains of the gold standard
 - Lowered taxes back to 70%
Ford
 - Left the top rate at 70%
Carter
 - Left the top rate at 70%
Reagan
 - Lowers the top rate from 70% to 28%
-----------------
 
=== Some Reagan History ===
 
During Reagan's time in office:
 
In the personal income tax code the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70% to 28%
 
He lifted the remaining price controls that existed on oil
 
He lowered the oil windfall profits
 
He reduced federal spending as a share of GDP from 20.2% to 19.2%
 
Under Reagan, the U.S. Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) (Pub.L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 - simplified the tax code, decreased the top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%  (Reagan wanted a flat tax of 28% but couldn't get it passed.)  It increased the mortgage deduction.
 
Total tax revenues increased in absolute terms because it stimulated the economy (the average person paid less)
 
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Pub.L. 97-34), also known as the ERTA or "Kemp-Roth Tax Cut," was a federal law enacted in the United States in 1981.   The top rate went from 70% to 50% and the bottom rate went from 14% to 11%.  Estate taxes started at $600k instead of $175k.  Allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs.  Also put in accelerated depreciation. Created 10% exclusion on income for two earner couples.  Capital gains tax was reduced from 28% to 20%.
 
After peaking in 1986 at $221 billion the deficit fell to $152 billion by 1989 and the the government's total tax receipts did rise despite the lower tax rates.  Individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989

The tax fell and government expenditures  rose. Leading to a record deficit (for that time). In addition the Republican Party now took up the habit of funding their favorite goals  regardless of the deficit.  It was no long only tax and spend  Democrats.  In fact it was not tax and spend anyway republics.  Now we have the annual custom of raising the debt limit with no end end sight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The tax fell and government expenditures  rose

That's true.  There were at least three key factors:

1.) The effect behind the Laffer Curve worked, but not as much as they anticipated,

2.) The military had to be rebuilt after the massive neglect by Carter,

3.) Reagan wasn't the only one at work here.  He had to deal with Congress and couldn't get all that he wanted.  He said later that the failure to reduce spending was his biggest regret.

 

19 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In addition the Republican Party now took up the habit of funding their favorite goals  regardless of the deficit.  It was no long only tax and spend  Democrats.

That's true.  I have no intention of defending the Republicans, not even the conservative wing.  Only a few of the conservatives take a libertarian view of government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

... he [Reagan] invited and solicited the participation of the Evangelicals into Republican politics.

Actually, Evangelicals had a lot to do with starting the Republican party.  The Abolitionists were mostly Evangelicals and this goes back to before the Civil War.  And in the late forties and the fifties William F. Buckley brought religion into the Republican party where he saw Conservatism as free markets and faith standing in opposition to Communism and atheism.  Evangelicals became political to fight "Godless Communism."  All politicians seek the votes of any religious folk they think they can win over.

Evangelicals aren't just on the right.  They played a part in laying the ground work for progressivism.  The Protestant Millennialism movement decided to take their drive for collective salvation into politics and ended up giving us Prohibition.  That form of moral activism used to gain government power was adopted by Socialists and Populists and Progressives in the late 1800s and early 1900s. 

There was also a migration of Evangelical voters out of the Democrat party as it moved to the left, went secular, and adopted the pro-choice position.  And there was a period where Evangelicals left the Democrat party in opposition to segregation.

It wasn't Reagan that created this religious right.  He was just a conservative who happened to be religious and in the right place when a number of things were generating angst among the Evangelicals.  Roe v Wade was still annoying them.  Carter, who had converted, and that attracted many, ended up governing more as a liberal than an Evangelical.  Organization as such was underway before Reagan ran (Bob Jones University, Falwell, Television evangelists, etc.

The bottom line is that Evangelicals got started in 1800s, had a resurgence due to opposition to Communism in the forties, and acquired new life as Democrats became more secular and the Evangelical movement acquired more structure with TV and organizations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

That's true.  There were at least three key factors:

1.) The effect behind the Laffer Curve worked, but not as much as they anticipated,

That means the Laffer model was wrong.  When a model does not produce the predicted answers it is a -bad- model.  It needs to be fixed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SteveWolfer said:

Actually, Evangelicals had a lot to do with starting the Republican party.  The Abolitionists were mostly Evangelicals and this goes back to before the Civil War.  And in the late forties and the fifties William F. Buckley brought religion into the Republican party where he saw Conservatism as free markets and faith standing in opposition to Communism and atheism.  Evangelicals became political to fight "Godless Communism."  All politicians seek the votes of any religious folk they think they can win over.

William Jennings Bryant,  a bible belting fundamentalist was an Ur-Progressive. The progressive movement was not the child of the atheists at all.  

This is the same Bryant as was ridiculed in "Inherit the Wind".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

That means the Laffer model was wrong.  When a model does not produce the predicted answers it is a -bad- model.  It needs to be fixed.  

No, it was right - it said that if the tax rate was reduced the total tax returns would increase - that happened, but the degree of its effect was overestimated.  It was, and is, a good model but it need to be calibrated and it doesn't operate in a vacuum - there are other factors at work. 

We have three or four commonly  used weather models and they are reasonably accurate, but only for a few days out.  Other factors effect them, they are tweaked and refined year after year.  And they were awful when they were first put into use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

No, it was right - it said that if the tax rate was reduced the total tax returns would increase - that happened, but the degree of its effect was overestimated.  It was, and is, a good model but it need to be calibrated and it doesn't operate in a vacuum - there are other factors at work. 

We have three or four commonly  used weather models and they are reasonably accurate, but only for a few days out.  Other factors effect them, they are tweaked and refined year after year.  And they were awful when they were first put into use.

The degree of its effect was overestimated, you say.  Obviously someone made a mistake.  If the model did not provide the right parameters than the model was incomplete.  If the model provided the wrong parameter is was a bad model.  In either case it was not a good model.  Good models give good answers.  Laffer may have  had the right idea  but he did  not have sufficient math to do the job.   The economy is complicated beyond any reasonable attempt to predict outcomes correctly and consistently.   If such models did exist,  where aren't there any billionaire economists? 

You will forgive me for being a stickler.  In scientific models  and theories it is six sigma or bust.   When an economic model can do for economics what the Standard Model  for Fields and Particles has done for physics,  I will be all eyes,  ears and at attention. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The progressive movement was not the child of the atheists at all.  

I don't believe I said otherwise. 

In my book on Progressivism I get into the history and show how it arose from the drive for collective salvation in the Protestant Millennialism movement, but that it merged with the nascent socialist and populist movements.  The strong anti-religious nature of modern progressivism owes more to what developed form the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory that saw its debut in America at Columbia University in the late 1930s (Cultural Marxism).

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In scientific models  and theories it is six sigma or bust.

This model demonstrated a principle.  The principle it demonstrated was totally correct which made the model correct. 

You aren't being a stickler, you are construing things so narrowly as to miss the point entirely.   What about the weather forecasting models?  If you were planning to hold an outdoor event the next day wouldn't it be useful to check the output of these weather models?  If you can get six sigma, fine.  If you can't, you ask if the model will give you marginally better answers than any other method available at the time. 

You appear to think, at least in some areas, as if the world were made only of binary situations in which 100% confidence is attainable as to the answers.  That is a fantasy, and when it is applied to reality with a claim that we live in world where all things expected to be  known by hard science, then it is a bizarre example of hiding from actual reality inside a fantasy world using a  pretense of science.

Baal, I think you have inadvertently defined pseudo-epistemology. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got to run right now so no time to comment, but I do want to share this by Rush Limbaugh:

Trump Hijacks the Democrat Convention

He's right. The media is talking about nothing but Trump today because of that presser above. Trump, besides detonating a lot of stuff from the DNC last night, quipped if Russia could help find Hillary's 30,000 plus emails if they have them. 

The media is going nuts.

Here is a direct quote from Rush's transcript and he is talking about Trump:

Quote

I am in awe here.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

This model demonstrated a principle.  The principle it demonstrated was totally correct which made the model correct. 

You aren't being a stickler, you are construing things so narrowly as to miss the point entirely.   What about the weather forecasting models?  If you were planning to hold an outdoor event the next day wouldn't it be useful to check the output of these weather models?  If you can get six sigma, fine.  If you can't, you ask if the model will give you marginally better answers than any other method available at the time. 

You appear to think, at least in some areas, as if the world were made only of binary situations in which 100% confidence is attainable as to the answers.  That is a fantasy, and when it is applied to reality with a claim that we live in world where all things expected to be  known by hard science, then it is a bizarre example of hiding from actual reality inside a fantasy world using a  pretense of science.

Baal, I think you have inadvertently defined pseudo-epistemology. :)

No.  I know the difference between good models and not so good models.  Also economic systems are inherently more difficult to model than physical systems. There are many more uncontrolled variables.  Basing an economic policy on a model  that is unlikely to work is a bad decision.  In finance one  looks at revenues and expenditures.  If the expenditures exceed the revenues then losses will occur.  One does not need science to see that.  St. Ronald and his buddies were betting on a horse that had not even won a single race.  The Laffer model  was never properly tested in real life.  Who but the politicians could rely on a half-ass untested model.  If the Republicans wanted Morning in America they should have not only lowered taxes but cut way back on military expenditures.  What they wanted was both.  Low taxes and spending on military goods  as though there were no tomorrow.  Surprise!  It did not work as well as they had  hoped.  

Weather forecasting is  an artifact of speech.  

1.  Weather systems are  chaotic.   Long range forecasting is impossible since the dynamics of weather are non-linear and chaotic.

2. The best weather forecast is about seven to ten days in the future.  After that the non-linearity of the processes make forecasts impossible. 

The reason why the physicists at CERN have better outcomes is that  particles and fields  are simpler and have better known and tested laws than economic systems.  There are far too many uncontrolled variables at work in an economy  to  come up with a prediction model  to match the complexity of the system.  The basic laws of quantum physics are linear and non-chaotic. 

Here is how they do it a CERN:  http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.6839v2.pdf

You will never see anything this neat and tractable in economic systems. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thenation.com/article/against-neo-mccarthyism/

This is one of those moments that will determine how I will probably vote. 

And then there goes Trump again sounding like an idiot - again.  "If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!"

I feel as if its secondary to him whether he wins or not. No thought as to how to bring voters to himself.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

Do you know what the Laffer curve is?  You keep calling it a model.

A model is a construct which embodies some of the characteristics of a real object or system.  The Laffer Curve is the output of a mathematical relation between taxation, investment and economic growth.  The theory is tax less and the economy grows more which sounds plausible but it ignore the fact that some of the investments or allocations the government makes with taxpayer money can grow the economy.  For example consider the Interstate Highway System,  part of the transportation infrastructure which has promoted economic growth.   The relation between taxation and grow potential is difficult to model mathematically as Mr. Laffer and his advocates found out.   Ronny (Sunrise in America) Reagan bet cutting the taxes would grow revenues fast enough for him to spend billions on military assets.   Well, he was wrong and the model underlying Mr. Laffer's curve was insufficient. 

Not the fault of Laffer.  Economies are much harder to model mathematically  than  quantum fields.   Which is why physics is successful and economic theory is not so successful.   A real live industrial high tech economy has too many uncontrolled variables to model successfully.

BTW:  model  is part of a hypothesis.  It is the part that can be pinned down mathematically.  The leading physical theory today is the Standard Model  of Fields and Particles.   It describes everything except gravity.   It is good to 12 places.  Much better than Mr. Laffer's model, but Laffer had a tougher hunk of meat to chew  than do the quantum physicists.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now