|
nachos posted:What exactly is the California GOP message nowadays? The best talking point I've seen so far is "this is what we could have done under Arnold if it wasn't for partisan politics holding us back" Basically that the Democrats will turn California into an over-regulated high tax wasteland and drive all the rich people and businesses away. They've got gently caress-all for organization or a bench, and they've lost young people and Latinos for the foreseeable future. If the Dems actually fix the state's finances and bring on some general prosperity, I can't imagine California electing any sizable GOP bloc for the next 30 years or so. There's a wonderfully butthurt article about it up on Reason.com which gives a good synopsis of the directionless and delusional state of the party: California GOP Needs Ideas quote:Instead of worrying about process, the party needs to build ideas that resonate with the public. Republicans will never compete with Democrats in the game of government give-away. They need to boisterously rebuild that old “Leave Us Alone” coalition and point out why government is the main obstacle to every Californian’s freedom and prosperity, although I’m not sure how many of the party’s leaders or activists believe that. Help me Rand Paul! You're our only Hope!  Edit: And holy poo poo, the Chairman of the California Republican Assembly just reset the "GOP Rape Mention" clock today: Ha ha ha That'll get the young people of California storming to the polls to vote Republican! Zeroisanumber fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Mar 12, 2013 |
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
There are more than enough wingers and Randroids in California to become dominant again in the legislature. The only problem as I see it is that they keep calling themselves Republicans and the GOP brand is irreparably destroyed in the dark blue states. California is a place where a bullshit party rebrand could really work, because it's mainly historical (and very recent) party baggage holding them back there. There are more than enough reactionaries and budding oligarchs there to elect Gov. Reagan three or four more times. There are states which are resisting the race to the bottom, but I don't know that there are any states that can call themselves progressive, certainly not one with the number of billionaires and prisoners that that one has.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:There are more than enough wingers and Randroids in California to become dominant again in the legislature. The only problem as I see it is that they keep calling themselves Republicans and the GOP brand is irreparably destroyed in the dark blue states. California is a place where a bullshit party rebrand could really work, because it's mainly historical (and very recent) party baggage holding them back there. There are more than enough reactionaries and budding oligarchs there to elect Gov. Reagan three or four more times. There are states which are resisting the race to the bottom, but I don't know that there are any states that can call themselves progressive, certainly not one with the number of billionaires and prisoners that that one has. The clever GOP solution was to just list "independent" for their party affiliation on the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
I'm not sure how the 'hurf durf North Korea with palm trees' thing is supposed to work on anyone that actually, you know, lives and votes in Cali. Since the majority of the state is transplants who moved there to get away from the actual poo poo-holes they were born in and are well aware of what it is actually like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Edit: And holy poo poo, the Chairman of the California Republican Assembly just reset the "GOP Rape Mention" clock today: It's like that Battlestar Galactica episode where every 33 minutes on the dot the cylons show up to attack the human fleet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
Who was this British rear end in a top hat on today in Rush's spot today? Anyone catch it when he was talking about how the Iran contra affair was just 'Reagan sending a cake to the Ayatollah, or whatever'? Yes, a cake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
towelieban posted:Who was this British rear end in a top hat on today in Rush's spot today? Anyone catch it when he was talking about how the Iran contra affair was just 'Reagan sending a cake to the Ayatollah, or whatever'? Meet National Review hack Mark Steyn! You know how conservatives are convinced that the muslim hordes will outbreed chrstendom and all of Europe will be asorbed into the pan-islamic caliphate? He's the reason why. His star peaked during the war on terror, but NRO still dusts him from time to time off to tell us about how Sesame Street caused Benghazi Mark Steyn posted:Unlike Mitt, I loathe Sesame Street. It bears primary responsibility for what the Canadian blogger Binky calls the de-monsterization of childhood — the idea that there are no evil monsters out there at the edges of the map, just shaggy creatures who look a little funny and can sometimes be a bit grouchy about it because people prejudge them until they learn to celebrate diversity and help Cranky the Friendly Monster go recycling. That is not unrelated to the infantilization of our society. Marinate three generations of Americans in that pabulum and it’s no surprise you wind up with unprotected diplomats dragged to their deaths from their “safe house” in Benghazi. Or as J. Scott Gration, the president’s special envoy to Sudan, said in 2009, in the most explicit Sesamization of American foreign policy: “We’ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes . . . ” The butchers of Darfur aren’t blood-drenched machete-wielding genocidal killers but just Cookie Monsters whom we haven’t given enough cookies. I’m not saying there’s a direct line between Bert & Ernie and Barack & Hillary . . . well, actually I am.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
Someone, somewhere out there, realizes all thge bullshit this guy s[ews, probably even the guy himse;f as well, but keeps him on radio because there are loads of people out there that buy this poo poo up and it brings in the $$$. It makes me all 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
quote:Likewise, courageous and visionary California Republicans—OK, that’s probably an oxymoron—must engage Californians about how the union-controlled democratic majority is turning our state into North Korea with palm trees. These people have obviously never read a single drat thing about North Korea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
I'm always a bit surprised how they can keep upping the hyperbole. Now that they've played the Notth Korea card I wonder where they're going next?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:I'm always a bit surprised how they can keep upping the hyperbole. Now that they've played the Notth Korea card I wonder where they're going next? "You know what real rape is? BEING TAXED." Although I have a hunch at least one person has actually said this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:"You know what real rape is? BEING TAXED." In an interview reciently, John Boenher made the argument that taxation is theft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
Herman Cain calls corporate taxation "new slavery." "Old slavery" of course being the ownership of human beings with dark skin as property.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 08:08
|
|
|
I has a question. One thing I've wondered about for the longest time, if states aren't allowed to have budget deficits, how was California several billions in the red for so many years? ProperGanderPusher posted:"You know what real rape is? BEING TAXED." I suggested Republicans do something similar to that whenever some evil journalist asks them a question about rape. "The only rape I care about is the kind Obama's doing to the American people's wallets!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 08:14
|
|
knife super power posted:In an interview reciently, John Boenher made the argument that taxation is theft. He said it loudly and casually. It's not the sort of thing a Republican like him is supposed to declare blithely at a major media event. They're going all-in.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I has a question. Almost no state actually has a balanced budget.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 08:53
|
|
|
Bill O'Reilly: "I am not in business to make money or accumulate fame". watt par posted:Almost no state actually has a balanced budget. I thought they're all required by law to do so?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I thought they're all required by law to do so? 40-some states have either statutes or constitutional requirements for either governors or legislatures or both to propose or pass balanced budgets but none of them are binding nor do they stop states from carrying deficits from year to year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:There's a wonderfully butthurt article about it up on Reason.com which gives a good synopsis of the directionless and delusional state of the party: quote:What’s an irrelevant party to do? Its new approach will take many years to change the state’s political climate at best, and California is in desperate straits now. California is so hostile to business that you can bicycle from the campuses of Facebook to Google to Apple in under and hour. People are fleeing the state in such droves that a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco now runs around $2200/month. It's only a matter of time before Cali becomes a rubble-strewn wasteland like Detroit. Does every Reason article end the same way, concluding that the solution is obvious: more libertarianism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
quote:Desperate straits, like its budget surplus ... Really? I never ever pay much attention to California politics but all I hear is how Cali is broke and about to go under. So I guess that's just a fairy tale?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:... Really? If Breitbart is accusing Jerry Brown of accounting tricks to report a balanced budget, you can probably safely assume the opposite
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Does every Reason article end the same way, concluding that the solution is obvious: more libertarianism? They used to be a lot more sensible. I remember a really interesting article about health care that suggested the French system would be the best -- nobody in the debate had mentioned them before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
nachos posted:If Breitbart is accusing Jerry Brown of accounting tricks to report a balanced budget, you can probably safely assume the opposite That article is precious: quote:To make his budget proposal look balanced this time around, Gov. Brown makes another series of optimistic assumptions, including that the tax increases California voters approved last November won’t hurt the economy and the state’s economy and tax revenues will grow; that California’s millionaires, hit with higher taxes again, won’t pack up and move to low-tax states; that California’s housing market will improve and home prices will go up; that President Barack Obama and Congress won’t do anything to hurt the national economy; and that the stock market will rise. In order for his budget to make sense Jerry Brown has to assume that raising taxes will result in the state collecting more revenue. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
I am convinced that nobody can do math. It's hard. Multiplying numbers, adding, sometimes subtracting. It's hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
Phone posted:I am convinced that nobody can do math. It's hard. Multiplying numbers, adding, sometimes subtracting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
It's not that they can't do math, it's that they actually believe in Lafferism despite all evidence to the contrary. As mentioned above regarding reason.com articles, the true believers don't see a lack of results as a falsification of their hypotheses, they see it as proof they just needed more of tax cuts/libertarianism/free markets. Tax cuts always increase revenues, tax hikes always decrease them, black is always white, I'm moving to Canada to escape socialism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
prefect posted:They used to be a lot more sensible. I remember a really interesting article about health care that suggested the French system would be the best -- nobody in the debate had mentioned them before. You mean this one? http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/07/why-prefer-french-health-care It's not bad, but he hedges his statements like a jerk. "Sure, it's great for me and people like it, but, um, you guys really should be at the mercy of the Market." They used to be big on this. "Yeah, this aspect of France/Sweden/Germany is really cool. But you don't deserve it. Just privatize everything and the free market will know its own. Also, Singapore! Hong Kong!" Reason is still going through some shockwaves from the whole tea Party thing. A good portion of libertarian intellectuals really believed that the Tea Party meant the Us was finally coming around to their views, instead of just being the more rabd wing of the GOP fiercely defending their ossified status quo. As a result, they have become almost as obseesed with 'purity' as Freep. Saying sllabe one against Rand Paul and his dad is rank heresy, and they believe ardently that he is the next GOP presidential nominee and will win handily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:That article is precious: Gov. Brown is recklessly assuming that Republican ideas don't solve everything and the president of the United States isn't actively trying to sink the entire country. What a loon!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
ZobarStyl posted:It's not that they can't do math, it's that they actually believe in Lafferism despite all evidence to the contrary. As mentioned above regarding reason.com articles, the true believers don't see a lack of results as a falsification of their hypotheses, they see it as proof they just needed more of tax cuts/libertarianism/free markets. Tax cuts always increase revenues, tax hikes always decrease them, black is always white, I'm moving to Canada to escape socialism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
If you're not pushing economic policy by gut feeling, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. e: brb, doubling down on black again
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Now there's a rumor that none other than the Koch brothers are talking to buy Tribune's newspapers, including the LA Times and Chicago Tribune: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/03/will_koch_brothers_buy_la_times.php Wouldn't that be a hell of a way to get their message across.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Vertical Lime posted:Wouldn't that be a hell of a way to get their message across. I found a preview 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
nachos posted:What exactly is the California GOP message nowadays? The best talking point I've seen so far is "this is what we could have done under Arnold if it wasn't for partisan politics holding us back" This is right on the money... but not in the way you think. Arnold wanted to actually raise taxes a bit more than he was able to but was shut down by the republicans in the state house from doing so, which means that while it was partisan politics that held him back it was republicans that were the partisan hacks themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
Alpha 1 posted:Meet National Review hack Mark Steyn! You know how conservatives are convinced that the muslim hordes will outbreed chrstendom and all of Europe will be asorbed into the pan-islamic caliphate? He's the reason why. His star peaked during the war on terror, but NRO still dusts him from time to time off to tell us about how Sesame Street caused Benghazi Yeah, the only thing I hate about Sesame Street is that it doesn't scare my two year old son enough and give him nightmares. That kid is getting way too soft.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
This old lady just led rush in circles, it was pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:The best part is that even if Laffer is right (he is not), tax cuts would only increase revenue in certain constrained situations by his own theory's lights, and by his own theory's lights, raising taxes will sometimes raise revenues. And even if it's right, the shape of the Laffer curve is unknown, so we don't know where the 'sweet spot' would be, which means that cutting taxes because Laffer said so is just plain-old stupid ideology that's not backed even by their own voodoo economics!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:The best part is that even if Laffer is right (he is not), tax cuts would only increase revenue in certain constrained situations by his own theory's lights, and by his own theory's lights, raising taxes will sometimes raise revenues. And even if it's right, the shape of the Laffer curve is unknown, so we don't know where the 'sweet spot' would be, which means that cutting taxes because Laffer said so is just plain-old stupid ideology that's not backed even by their own voodoo economics! I had to sit through an Economics lecture recently that seriously discussed the Laffer curve like it was a real thing and it was pretty hard to keep my mouth shut. At least the professor was honest enough to say that all the data shows the tax cuts justified by the Laffer curve in the 80's didn't increase revenue so it was clear that we were on the 'left side' of the curve. I asked if there was any data at all that showed a case where a country was clearly on the 'right side' and lowering tax rates increased revenue and he said he'd get back to me. Never did, though. I'm not completely against the concept of the Laffer curve but in order for it to work you need to assume certain things about income and substitution effects and completely ignore that every major country uses marginal tax brackets instead of flat rates. In a completely make-believe country that fits all the assumptions and conditions, the math checks out at least. In reality its just another one of those stupid oversimplified Econ line charts that people who don't understand Economics point to when it fits their agenda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:I asked if there was any data at all that showed a case where a country was clearly on the 'right side' and lowering tax rates increased revenue and he said he'd get back to me. Never did, though. The clearest example I know of is in the case of "sin taxes" on things like cigarettes. See http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc/Presentations/Papers/taxes_consump_rev.pdf . Such very high tax rates clearly do reduce consumption. Note that in those cases you're usually talking about tax rates in excess of 100% of the value of the product, though, or even higher.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The clearest example I know of is in the case of "sin taxes" on things like cigarettes. See http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc/Presentations/Papers/taxes_consump_rev.pdf . Such very high tax rates clearly do reduce consumption. Note that in those cases you're usually talking about tax rates in excess of 100% of the value of the product, though, or even higher. Well, yeah, but that's not really what the Laffer curve is about. It's a chart of government revenue vs tax rates, not consumption vs tax rates. That study doesn't seem to talk about whether revenue decreases from fewer purchases of cigarettes was offset by increased revenue on the cigarettes that people were still buying. At least I didn't see anything in a Ctrl+f for revenue and a quick scan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
The Laffer curve is one of those things that are right for all the wrong reasons. Sure, there probably is a point where the basic premise is true. However, to be true(reach the point where revenue actually starts declining), you'd probably need sky high tax rates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 21:10
|
|
