Author Topic: Live conservatively but vote liberal?  (Read 18821 times)

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #100 on: August 12, 2016, 11:05:58 AM »
Which is how the Supreme Court has interpreted that clause for the last 100+ years, regardless of the Overall political leaning of the court. It's fair enough to disagree, but the preponderance of judicial decisions in the country has been that way.

Cwadda

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Age: 29
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #101 on: August 12, 2016, 11:36:19 AM »
This country is so unbelievably bipartisan and it's horrifying. We have people running for president that can't even help themselves from insulting one another on damn Twitter.

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #102 on: August 12, 2016, 11:36:58 AM »
I used to be a republican when I was younger, back when they talked mainly about fiscal responsibility.  But I left when I realized that they weren't, in fact, fiscally responsible.  And right about that time they started amping up the crazy re: social issues.  So now I am a democrat. 

The irony is this - when I was a repub, I ran through money like water.  Spent everything I had and then some.  Nowadays I am all about cutting costs and savings, and am a Dem.  Which is not all that surprising, I guess, when you consider that dems have better fiscal policy/results than Repubs do.

Don't believe it?  Well, neither did I, for a long time.  As someone raised in a very conservative household in a very conservative state, I always thought "Of course the Republicans are better at $$, that's their whole platform!".  But then I saw that data, and the data did not match up.  Eventually I realized that (counterintuitively) that the Dem's policies just work better for the economy. 

Still don't believe me?  Well check out some of these facts:

https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/21-TruthsThat-Prove-Republicans-Have-Been-Wrong-About-Everything

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #103 on: August 12, 2016, 12:26:49 PM »
I used to be a republican when I was younger, back when they talked mainly about fiscal responsibility.  But I left when I realized that they weren't, in fact, fiscally responsible.  And right about that time they started amping up the crazy re: social issues.  So now I am a democrat. 

The irony is this - when I was a repub, I ran through money like water.  Spent everything I had and then some.  Nowadays I am all about cutting costs and savings, and am a Dem.  Which is not all that surprising, I guess, when you consider that dems have better fiscal policy/results than Repubs do.

Don't believe it?  Well, neither did I, for a long time.  As someone raised in a very conservative household in a very conservative state, I always thought "Of course the Republicans are better at $$, that's their whole platform!".  But then I saw that data, and the data did not match up.  Eventually I realized that (counterintuitively) that the Dem's policies just work better for the economy. 

Still don't believe me?  Well check out some of these facts:

https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/21-TruthsThat-Prove-Republicans-Have-Been-Wrong-About-Everything

Those aren't facts.  Mostly there just opinions staged as facts, some of them are attacking straw men, and some are just flat out wrong. 

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #104 on: August 12, 2016, 12:49:41 PM »
I used to be a republican when I was younger, back when they talked mainly about fiscal responsibility.  But I left when I realized that they weren't, in fact, fiscally responsible.  And right about that time they started amping up the crazy re: social issues.  So now I am a democrat. 

The irony is this - when I was a repub, I ran through money like water.  Spent everything I had and then some.  Nowadays I am all about cutting costs and savings, and am a Dem.  Which is not all that surprising, I guess, when you consider that dems have better fiscal policy/results than Repubs do.

Don't believe it?  Well, neither did I, for a long time.  As someone raised in a very conservative household in a very conservative state, I always thought "Of course the Republicans are better at $$, that's their whole platform!".  But then I saw that data, and the data did not match up.  Eventually I realized that (counterintuitively) that the Dem's policies just work better for the economy. 

Still don't believe me?  Well check out some of these facts:

https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/21-TruthsThat-Prove-Republicans-Have-Been-Wrong-About-Everything

Those aren't facts.  Mostly there just opinions staged as facts, some of them are attacking straw men, and some are just flat out wrong.
Well more have sources attached, do have sources that disagree with those?  Which ones do you say are opinions, which are attacking strawmen?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2016, 12:51:22 PM by Gin1984 »

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #105 on: August 12, 2016, 01:04:42 PM »

Those aren't facts.  Mostly there just opinions staged as facts, some of them are attacking straw men, and some are just flat out wrong.
Well more have sources attached, do have sources that disagree with those?  Which ones do you say are opinions, which are attacking strawmen?

Jrr85, I agree with Gin1984 - I'd be quite interested to know which points you feel were not factual, and in what way? 

I know some of those point were more about non-economic policy, so I'll post another link that is focused more tightly on economics since that is our main point of discussion here: 

https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/14-Facts-About-The-Obama-Presidency-That-Most-People-Dont-Know

bdylan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #106 on: August 12, 2016, 02:42:08 PM »
Also first time poster.  I'm actually not surprised at number of folks on MMM that consider themselves liberal.  Think about it, the goal generally is reduce earned income to zero and to live off of cap gains and dividends (which are taxed much lower than earned income) and the low levels of earned income make individuals eligible for the ACA.  (see here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/28/obamacare-friend-of-the-entrepreneur-and-early-retiree/)

No one here is looking to pay high taxes on their wealth (even though their aspirations, if realized, would place them in the 1 to 10% of wealth owners in America).  If they were, I'd take their claims to support social welfare programs a bit more seriously.  As it is, its just posturing, or, individuals self-interest to support programs that give money to people with low- to zero- earned income.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2016, 02:47:57 PM by bdylan »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #107 on: August 12, 2016, 03:00:09 PM »
This country is so unbelievably bipartisan and it's horrifying. We have people running for president that can't even help themselves from insulting one another on damn Twitter.

Just a correction: you're misusing the word "bipartisan." I believe you meant to say the country is very partisan.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #108 on: August 12, 2016, 03:22:43 PM »
Also first time poster.  I'm actually not surprised at number of folks on MMM that consider themselves liberal.  Think about it, the goal generally is reduce earned income to zero and to live off of cap gains and dividends (which are taxed much lower than earned income) and the low levels of earned income make individuals eligible for the ACA.  (see here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/28/obamacare-friend-of-the-entrepreneur-and-early-retiree/)

No one here is looking to pay high taxes on their wealth (even though their aspirations, if realized, would place them in the 1 to 10% of wealth owners in America).  If they were, I'd take their claims to support social welfare programs a bit more seriously.  As it is, its just posturing, or, individuals self-interest to support programs that give money to people with low- to zero- earned income.

Really? And you know this from? Guessing? You sure haven't asked, because my answer is that I live in a country that taxes wealth, and my vote regularly goes to the party that wants to increase taxes on wealth and high incomes. I also decline to take tax cuts that I disagree with (like lower taxes on dividends).

This is the leader of the labor party in Norway.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Gahr_Støre He comes from a wealthy family, is a multi millionaire, and is working to keep the taxes high.

Why is it unbelievable for so many conservatives and libertarians that a person can believe in a greater good and work for rules and regulations that do not directly benefit you personally. Despite what Ayn Rand claims,not everyone is an egoist.

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3791
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #109 on: August 12, 2016, 03:26:56 PM »
Also first time poster.  I'm actually not surprised at number of folks on MMM that consider themselves liberal.  Think about it, the goal generally is reduce earned income to zero and to live off of cap gains and dividends (which are taxed much lower than earned income) and the low levels of earned income make individuals eligible for the ACA.  (see here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/28/obamacare-friend-of-the-entrepreneur-and-early-retiree/)

No one here is looking to pay high taxes on their wealth (even though their aspirations, if realized, would place them in the 1 to 10% of wealth owners in America).  If they were, I'd take their claims to support social welfare programs a bit more seriously.  As it is, its just posturing, or, individuals self-interest to support programs that give money to people with low- to zero- earned income.

Since you're new here, you might want to refrain from such blanket statements until you actually ask some people what they think. I regularly vote for the party that would increase my own taxes.


bdylan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #110 on: August 12, 2016, 03:30:51 PM »
Also first time poster.  I'm actually not surprised at number of folks on MMM that consider themselves liberal.  Think about it, the goal generally is reduce earned income to zero and to live off of cap gains and dividends (which are taxed much lower than earned income) and the low levels of earned income make individuals eligible for the ACA.  (see here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/28/obamacare-friend-of-the-entrepreneur-and-early-retiree/)

No one here is looking to pay high taxes on their wealth (even though their aspirations, if realized, would place them in the 1 to 10% of wealth owners in America).  If they were, I'd take their claims to support social welfare programs a bit more seriously.  As it is, its just posturing, or, individuals self-interest to support programs that give money to people with low- to zero- earned income.

Really? And you know this from? Guessing? You sure haven't asked, because my answer is that I live in a country that taxes wealth, and my vote regularly goes to the party that wants to increase taxes on wealth and high incomes. I also decline to take tax cuts that I disagree with (like lower taxes on dividends).

This is the leader of the labor party in Norway.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Gahr_Støre He comes from a wealthy family, is a multi millionaire, and is working to keep the taxes high.

Why is it unbelievable for so many conservatives and libertarians that a person can believe in a greater good and work for rules and regulations that do not directly benefit you personally. Despite what Ayn Rand claims,not everyone is an egoist.

I stand corrected.  I was speaking from a US-centric perspective.  And from that perspective, I generally think that this is a pretty typical strategy of individuals focused on early retirement/financial independence (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/06/04/the-lovely-low-taxes-of-early-retirement/)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #111 on: August 12, 2016, 03:31:23 PM »
Also first time poster.  I'm actually not surprised at number of folks on MMM that consider themselves liberal.  Think about it, the goal generally is reduce eVoting for Trump to get back at the establishment is like setting fire to yourVoting for Trump to get back at the establishment is like setting fire to your house to get back at a parent for beating you... You may have hurt them but you still burnt down your whole fucking home in the process. I don't know how to right the ship but I know voting for Trump is not it. Even though by ignoring one you essentially are boosting the other, or at least leaving the election up to the careless voters on the left and the right...  house to get back at a parent for beating you... You may have hurt them but you still burnt down your whole fucking home inVoting for Trump to get back at the establishment is like setting fire to your house to get back at a parent for beating you... You may have hurt them but you still burnt down your whole fucking home in the process. I don't know how to right the ship but I know voting for Trump is not it. Even though by ignoring one you essentially are boosting the other, or at least leaving the election up to the careless voters on the left and the right...  the process. I don't know how to right the ship but I know voting for Trump is not it. Even though by ignoring one you essentially are boosting the other, or at least leaving the election up to the careless voters on the left and the right... arned income to zero and to live off of cap gains and dividends (which are taxed much lower than earned income) and the low levels of earned income make individuals eligible for the ACA.  (see here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/28/obamacare-friend-of-the-entrepreneur-and-early-retiree/)

No one here is looking to pay high taxes on their wealth (even though their aspirations, if realized, would place them in the 1 to 10% of wealth owners in America).  If they were, I'd take their claims to support social welfare programs a bit more seriously.  As it is, its just posturing, or, individuals self-interest to support programs that give money to people with low- to zero- earned income.

Since you're new here, you might want to refrain from such blanket statements until you actually ask some people what they think. I regularly vote for the party that would increase my own taxes.

Yep.  An awful lot of us on here do.

bdylan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #112 on: August 12, 2016, 03:36:48 PM »
Also first time poster.  I'm actually not surprised at number of folks on MMM that consider themselves liberal.  Think about it, the goal generally is reduce eVoting for Trump to get back at the establishment is like setting fire to yourVoting for Trump to get back at the establishment is like setting fire to your house to get back at a parent for beating you... You may have hurt them but you still burnt down your whole fucking home in the process. I don't know how to right the ship but I know voting for Trump is not it. Even though by ignoring one you essentially are boosting the other, or at least leaving the election up to the careless voters on the left and the right...  house to get back at a parent for beating you... You may have hurt them but you still burnt down your whole fucking home inVoting for Trump to get back at the establishment is like setting fire to your house to get back at a parent for beating you... You may have hurt them but you still burnt down your whole fucking home in the process. I don't know how to right the ship but I know voting for Trump is not it. Even though by ignoring one you essentially are boosting the other, or at least leaving the election up to the careless voters on the left and the right...  the process. I don't know how to right the ship but I know voting for Trump is not it. Even though by ignoring one you essentially are boosting the other, or at least leaving the election up to the careless voters on the left and the right... arned income to zero and to live off of cap gains and dividends (which are taxed much lower than earned income) and the low levels of earned income make individuals eligible for the ACA.  (see here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/28/obamacare-friend-of-the-entrepreneur-and-early-retiree/)

No one here is looking to pay high taxes on their wealth (even though their aspirations, if realized, would place them in the 1 to 10% of wealth owners in America).  If they were, I'd take their claims to support social welfare programs a bit more seriously.  As it is, its just posturing, or, individuals self-interest to support programs that give money to people with low- to zero- earned income.

Since you're new here, you might want to refrain from such blanket statements until you actually ask some people what they think. I regularly vote for the party that would increase my own taxes.

Yep.  An awful lot of us on here do.

Support a tax on wealth? (Outside of the estate tax?)  Ok, I guess I can buy it.  It still doesn't change the point that to the extent individuals (in the US) are living off of accumulated wealth, it is extraordinarily easy to support generous government programs as we don't typically tax wealth in the US.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #113 on: August 12, 2016, 06:24:42 PM »
Since you're new here, you might want to refrain from such blanket statements until you actually ask some people what they think. I regularly vote for the party that would increase my own taxes.

Yep.  An awful lot of us on here do.

Support a tax on wealth? (Outside of the estate tax?)  Ok, I guess I can buy it.  It still doesn't change the point that to the extent individuals (in the US) are living off of accumulated wealth, it is extraordinarily easy to support generous government programs as we don't typically tax wealth in the US.

Bernie supported increasing taxes on cap gains and dividends. That would severely curtail the Roth conversion strategy.

Find the MMM poll when Bernie was still running. Your stereotype of those hypocritical liberals doesn't hold water on this forum.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #114 on: August 12, 2016, 06:53:21 PM »
Also first time poster.  I'm actually not surprised at number of folks on MMM that consider themselves liberal.  Think about it, the goal generally is reduce earned income to zero and to live off of cap gains and dividends (which are taxed much lower than earned income) and the low levels of earned income make individuals eligible for the ACA.  (see here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/28/obamacare-friend-of-the-entrepreneur-and-early-retiree/)

No one here is looking to pay high taxes on their wealth (even though their aspirations, if realized, would place them in the 1 to 10% of wealth owners in America).  If they were, I'd take their claims to support social welfare programs a bit more seriously.  As it is, its just posturing, or, individuals self-interest to support programs that give money to people with low- to zero- earned income.

Really? And you know this from? Guessing? You sure haven't asked, because my answer is that I live in a country that taxes wealth, and my vote regularly goes to the party that wants to increase taxes on wealth and high incomes. I also decline to take tax cuts that I disagree with (like lower taxes on dividends).

This is the leader of the labor party in Norway.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Gahr_Støre He comes from a wealthy family, is a multi millionaire, and is working to keep the taxes high.

Why is it unbelievable for so many conservatives and libertarians that a person can believe in a greater good and work for rules and regulations that do not directly benefit you personally. Despite what Ayn Rand claims,not everyone is an egoist.

I stand corrected.  I was speaking from a US-centric perspective.  And from that perspective, I generally think that this is a pretty typical strategy of individuals focused on early retirement/financial independence (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/06/04/the-lovely-low-taxes-of-early-retirement/)

Believing that overall tax rates should be higher and that one should use all readily available tax reduction strategies  are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Many of us would support higher taxes on everyone (or at least a sub-set of the financially better off) while we'd simultaniously encourage people to pay less individually by contributing to their IRAs and 401(k)s.

(edited to correct first sentence.)
« Last Edit: August 13, 2016, 10:37:46 AM by nereo »

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #115 on: August 12, 2016, 08:12:22 PM »
Believing that overall tax rates should be higher and that one should use all readily available tax reduction strategies  are mutually exclusive ideas.

Many of us would support higher taxes on everyone (or at least a sub-set of the financially better off) while we'd simultaniously encourage people to pay less individually by contributing to their IRAs and 401(k)s.

I think you're missing a crucial "not" in your first sentence there, nereo.

And I completely agree: there's no contradiction in playing by the current rules of the game even though you want to change them.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #116 on: August 13, 2016, 08:07:46 AM »
Believing that overall tax rates should be higher and that one should use all readily available tax reduction strategies  are mutually exclusive ideas.

Many of us would support higher taxes on everyone (or at least a sub-set of the financially better off) while we'd simultaniously encourage people to pay less individually by contributing to their IRAs and 401(k)s.

I think you're missing a crucial "not" in your first sentence there, nereo.

And I completely agree: there's no contradiction in playing by the current rules of the game even though you want to change them.
No, my first sentence was written as intended.  There are many here who think that taxes in the US should be higher.
It is also true that there are many here who thing taxes should not be higher.
Both camps have a large percentage of people who believe that one should take advantage of all strategies to reduce one's taxable burden.  After all, those tax advantages are generally written into legislation in order to encourage or support various activities (saving for retirement, raising children, going to school, etc).

Personally, I would like to see taxes on those of us earning above the median income (roughly $52k/household) be increased slightly, while also seeing a small decrease in the size of the federal government. In short: a modest increase in tax revenue and a modest decrease in spending creating a small (~1-2%) surplus, at least until our public debt-to-gdp goes back below ~60%.  As always, a critical look at what programs we want government to fund is necessary.


radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 956
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #117 on: August 13, 2016, 08:41:41 AM »
Believing that overall tax rates should be higher and that one should use all readily available tax reduction strategies  are mutually exclusive ideas.

Many of us would support higher taxes on everyone (or at least a sub-set of the financially better off) while we'd simultaniously encourage people to pay less individually by contributing to their IRAs and 401(k)s.

I think you're missing a crucial "not" in your first sentence there, nereo.

And I completely agree: there's no contradiction in playing by the current rules of the game even though you want to change them.
No, my first sentence was written as intended.  There are many here who think that taxes in the US should be higher.
It is also true that there are many here who thing taxes should not be higher.
Both camps have a large percentage of people who believe that one should take advantage of all strategies to reduce one's taxable burden.  After all, those tax advantages are generally written into legislation in order to encourage or support various activities (saving for retirement, raising children, going to school, etc).

Personally, I would like to see taxes on those of us earning above the median income (roughly $52k/household) be increased slightly, while also seeing a small decrease in the size of the federal government. In short: a modest increase in tax revenue and a modest decrease in spending creating a small (~1-2%) surplus, at least until our public debt-to-gdp goes back below ~60%.  As always, a critical look at what programs we want government to fund is necessary.

So increasing revenue while cutting spending as an attempt at solving a financial problem....... good luck with that.  It will NEVER work.  /sarcasm



nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #118 on: August 13, 2016, 08:58:43 AM »
Believing that overall tax rates should be higher and that one should use all readily available tax reduction strategies  are mutually exclusive ideas.

Many of us would support higher taxes on everyone (or at least a sub-set of the financially better off) while we'd simultaniously encourage people to pay less individually by contributing to their IRAs and 401(k)s.

I think you're missing a crucial "not" in your first sentence there, nereo.

And I completely agree: there's no contradiction in playing by the current rules of the game even though you want to change them.
No, my first sentence was written as intended.  There are many here who think that taxes in the US should be higher.
It is also true that there are many here who thing taxes should not be higher.
Both camps have a large percentage of people who believe that one should take advantage of all strategies to reduce one's taxable burden.  After all, those tax advantages are generally written into legislation in order to encourage or support various activities (saving for retirement, raising children, going to school, etc).

Personally, I would like to see taxes on those of us earning above the median income (roughly $52k/household) be increased slightly, while also seeing a small decrease in the size of the federal government. In short: a modest increase in tax revenue and a modest decrease in spending creating a small (~1-2%) surplus, at least until our public debt-to-gdp goes back below ~60%.  As always, a critical look at what programs we want government to fund is necessary.

So increasing revenue while cutting spending as an attempt at solving a financial problem....... good luck with that.  It will NEVER work.  /sarcasm

It's certainly not an easy path to take, but to me it seems the logical strategy if the goal is to reduce (or at least curb the expansion) of the federal government while not adding to our deficit.  Consider the alternative strategies:
There's the strategy of reducing tax revenue, often with the explicit purpose of shrinking government overall.  This is the path we've taken for much of the last few decades (e.g. the once-temporary, now permenant Bush tax cuts), yet we have a much larger federal government and a sizable deficit. 

Then there's the strategy of holding taxes constant while reducing government.  That could achieve the same goals, but raises questions about the distribution of taxes. To me it already seems like those of us who are well off benefit substantially from deductions and credits and capitol-gains rates that those who are "sub-median income" don't benefit from.

What would your strategy be?

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 956
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #119 on: August 13, 2016, 09:22:19 AM »
Believing that overall tax rates should be higher and that one should use all readily available tax reduction strategies  are mutually exclusive ideas.

Many of us would support higher taxes on everyone (or at least a sub-set of the financially better off) while we'd simultaniously encourage people to pay less individually by contributing to their IRAs and 401(k)s.

I think you're missing a crucial "not" in your first sentence there, nereo.

And I completely agree: there's no contradiction in playing by the current rules of the game even though you want to change them.
No, my first sentence was written as intended.  There are many here who think that taxes in the US should be higher.
It is also true that there are many here who thing taxes should not be higher.
Both camps have a large percentage of people who believe that one should take advantage of all strategies to reduce one's taxable burden.  After all, those tax advantages are generally written into legislation in order to encourage or support various activities (saving for retirement, raising children, going to school, etc).

Personally, I would like to see taxes on those of us earning above the median income (roughly $52k/household) be increased slightly, while also seeing a small decrease in the size of the federal government. In short: a modest increase in tax revenue and a modest decrease in spending creating a small (~1-2%) surplus, at least until our public debt-to-gdp goes back below ~60%.  As always, a critical look at what programs we want government to fund is necessary.

So increasing revenue while cutting spending as an attempt at solving a financial problem....... good luck with that.  It will NEVER work.  /sarcasm

It's certainly not an easy path to take, but to me it seems the logical strategy if the goal is to reduce (or at least curb the expansion) of the federal government while not adding to our deficit.  Consider the alternative strategies:
There's the strategy of reducing tax revenue, often with the explicit purpose of shrinking government overall.  This is the path we've taken for much of the last few decades (e.g. the once-temporary, now permenant Bush tax cuts), yet we have a much larger federal government and a sizable deficit. 

Then there's the strategy of holding taxes constant while reducing government.  That could achieve the same goals, but raises questions about the distribution of taxes. To me it already seems like those of us who are well off benefit substantially from deductions and credits and capitol-gains rates that those who are "sub-median income" don't benefit from.

What would your strategy be?

I'm not very good at sarcasm.  I even said it was and it was missed.

I completely agree with you nero. I find it to be the ONLY sensible option.  Of course the devil is in the details.  What gets cut and who gets a tax increase are the never agreeable questions.

I am reminded that you know a deal is fair when nobody is happy with it (a little more sarcasm... am I getting better?).

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #120 on: August 13, 2016, 09:33:07 AM »

I'm not very good at sarcasm.  I even said it was and it was missed.

I completely agree with you nero. I find it to be the ONLY sensible option.  Of course the devil is in the details.  What gets cut and who gets a tax increase are the never agreeable questions.

I am reminded that you know a deal is fair when nobody is happy with it (a little more sarcasm... am I getting better?).

Ok - I almost asked about the sarcasm, because I wasn't sure whether "/sarcasm" referred to "it will never work" or "good luck with that"... so I wasn't sure whether you were being supportive or dismissive.
Nevertheless, I think you're right that a deal (at least with taxes) might only be fair when nobody is fully happy with the outcome.  Perhaps this is why it's so damn hard to ever get real change done.
If I could wave my magic wand I'd get rid of all deductions across the board and then start with tax brackets that were lower for everyone (but would result in a slight increase in revenue, because of the absence of said-deductions).  But every deduction has powerful proponents and lobbiest fighting to keep it.  Just try getting rid of the mortgage deduction...

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #121 on: August 13, 2016, 09:36:58 AM »
Believing that overall tax rates should be higher and that one should use all readily available tax reduction strategies  are mutually exclusive ideas.

Many of us would support higher taxes on everyone (or at least a sub-set of the financially better off) while we'd simultaniously encourage people to pay less individually by contributing to their IRAs and 401(k)s.

I think you're missing a crucial "not" in your first sentence there, nereo.

And I completely agree: there's no contradiction in playing by the current rules of the game even though you want to change them.

No, my first sentence was written as intended.  There are many here who think that taxes in the US should be higher.
It is also true that there are many here who thing taxes should not be higher.
Both camps have a large percentage of people who believe that one should take advantage of all strategies to reduce one's taxable burden.  After all, those tax advantages are generally written into legislation in order to encourage or support various activities (saving for retirement, raising children, going to school, etc).

Could somebody explain what I'm misreading here? I'm still very convinced that first sentence was meant to read "believing that overall tax rates should be higher and that one should use all readily available tax reduction strategies are [NOT] mutually exclusive ideas" even though nereo denies it.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #122 on: August 13, 2016, 10:36:51 AM »
Believing that overall tax rates should be higher and that one should use all readily available tax reduction strategies  are mutually exclusive ideas.

Many of us would support higher taxes on everyone (or at least a sub-set of the financially better off) while we'd simultaniously encourage people to pay less individually by contributing to their IRAs and 401(k)s.

I think you're missing a crucial "not" in your first sentence there, nereo.

And I completely agree: there's no contradiction in playing by the current rules of the game even though you want to change them.

No, my first sentence was written as intended.  There are many here who think that taxes in the US should be higher.
It is also true that there are many here who thing taxes should not be higher.
Both camps have a large percentage of people who believe that one should take advantage of all strategies to reduce one's taxable burden.  After all, those tax advantages are generally written into legislation in order to encourage or support various activities (saving for retirement, raising children, going to school, etc).

Could somebody explain what I'm misreading here? I'm still very convinced that first sentence was meant to read "believing that overall tax rates should be higher and that one should use all readily available tax reduction strategies are [NOT] mutually exclusive ideas" even though nereo denies it.

Ah - my apologies Jack!  When you said you thought I was missing a "not" in the first sentence, I thought you meant I intended to say "believing that overall tax rates should NOT be higher...".  Which, of course, many people also argue for (just not me personally).

edited earlier post.  sorry.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #123 on: August 14, 2016, 02:37:22 AM »
It's called being "progressive"...

I'm not sure how you define progressive. As used in the current political climate, to me this word appears to mean 'insane'. Sorry if that is rude, but to me this looks a lot like what went on in Venezuela. It's all fun and games until the money runs out. If that is not what you mean, I'd appreciate learning more.

Progressives are socially liberal and fiscally responsible. A lot of people assume the title but few live it.  Government programs are great (if you can pay for them!)

You just described a libertarian (or classical liberal).

Modern "progressives" are socially liberal and fiscally irresponsible. 

Generally, people who don't realize that "gee, that sounds good, who wouldn't want to fund massage therapy programs for three-legged transgender dogs?  Lets do it!" programs have costs that are not borne by some magical entity with boundless resources (the "government"), but rather come out of all of us.

aceyou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1669
  • Age: 41
    • Life is Good - Aceyou's Journal
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #124 on: August 14, 2016, 06:24:41 AM »
To answer the OP's question, yes, I live by most peoples definition of conservative but vote liberal. 

My personal conservatism:
- 50% savings rate
- Married once to person of opposite sex, two kids (I think so-called conservatives generally approve of this arrangement)

However, I'd argue that Rebublicans may be more liberal than Liberals, if we define liberal as promoting more government control:

Regarding deficit:  both parties run a federal deficit when put in power and have for decades.  This one is a push. 

Regarding marriage: republicans want more government control

Regarding casual drug use: republicans want more government contol/spending on it through laws/policing/incarceration.

Regarding gambling: republican politicians got online gambling stymied and have shut daily fantasy sports down in several states, reducing my individual freedoms. 

Regarding Women's right to choose:  once again

I could keep going.  Weirdly, on tons of issues, republicans are the ones I see stifling personal liberties, which flies in the face of how I was raised to view them. 

Oh, another thing about republicans that I find very annoying...their VERY selective use of the "states rights" argument.  For example, republicans have no problem abortion being illegal at the federal level, but when it's declared legal, then all of a sudden, "the states" should be able to decide this issue.  Or with civil rights in the 60's, when faced with just obvious terrible treatment of fellow human beings, they just skirt around the issue by saying, hey, this isn't an issue of discrimination for us, it's simply our love of "state's rights" we are fighting for.  REALLY?  Basically, if they agree with a federal law, they support it 100% even if the constitution is ambiguous whether it should be handled at the state or federal level.  However, if they disagree with a federal law, they climb up on the states rights pulpit faster than you can believe. 

These are the kind of things that have me voting for people that get called "liberal" lately, whatever that even means, despite living conservative personally by just about any standard.


radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 956
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #125 on: August 14, 2016, 07:53:51 AM »

Modern "progressives" are socially liberal and fiscally irresponsible. 


I suppose one can go round and round about the definition of progressives.  That is fine with me. But I believe the word irresponsible is pretty well defined and can not be reserved for modern progressives.  For a fiscal policy to be irresponsible you would need to spend with little or no plan for paying for it. That actually defines every congress and president for the past 50 years (except for 2 surplus years). 

I am for paying back what we spent and spend less than we collect moving forward.  This is not progressive and with all the tax cut proposals and threats of default on our already spent obligations it certainly is not conservative.  So what am I fiscally?
 



Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #126 on: August 14, 2016, 10:32:14 AM »
To answer the OP's question, yes, I live by most peoples definition of conservative but vote liberal. 

Oh, another thing about republicans that I find very annoying...their VERY selective use of the "states rights" argument...Basically, if they agree with a federal law, they support it 100% even if the constitution is ambiguous whether it should be handled at the state or federal level.  However, if they disagree with a federal law, they climb up on the states rights pulpit faster than you can believe. 

These are the kind of things that have me voting for people that get called "liberal" lately, whatever that even means, despite living conservative personally by just about any standard.

Agree 100% with this analysis. Also note Texas and NC state legislators limiting local cities' rights to govern as their elected officials see fit. They go on how the closer the government is to the people, the more legitimate it is, except when cities do something "liberal" they don't like.

I don't like throwing good money after bad on corrupt government programs like Democrats do (not all things can be fixed with other people's money), but Republicans' track record on both fiscal and individual liberties is quite poor overall.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 689
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #127 on: August 14, 2016, 04:30:35 PM »
Wow! Great replies, folks. Much appreciated.
So the gist from the last dozen replies is that progressives want to cut government spending and raise taxes to eliminate the deficit? Am I reading that right? And various non-progressives sort of agreed? Wow again.
If I honestly believed progressives would follow though, I might even vote for them. I just cannot imagine any program they'd want to cut. I'd cut obvious failures like:
Dept of Education. It has no apparent purpose other than to spend money, and no positive accomplishments. Kids, on average, are not learning more now than in the relatively recent past before it was created.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #128 on: August 14, 2016, 05:17:49 PM »
If I honestly believed progressives would follow though, I might even vote for them. I just cannot imagine any program they'd want to cut. I'd cut obvious failures like:
Dept of Education. It has no apparent purpose other than to spend money, and no positive accomplishments. Kids, on average, are not learning more now than in the relatively recent past before it was created.

Yeah, well, that's the deal. Trying to agree on what to cut is the hard part. Since "conservatives" have claimed the title of "fiscally responsible," it's used as a bludgeon against anyone who doesn't agree with their spending cuts.

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3791
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #129 on: August 14, 2016, 05:19:40 PM »
Wow! Great replies, folks. Much appreciated.
So the gist from the last dozen replies is that progressives want to cut government spending and raise taxes to eliminate the deficit? Am I reading that right? And various non-progressives sort of agreed? Wow again.
If I honestly believed progressives would follow though, I might even vote for them. I just cannot imagine any program they'd want to cut. I'd cut obvious failures like:
Dept of Education. It has no apparent purpose other than to spend money, and no positive accomplishments. Kids, on average, are not learning more now than in the relatively recent past before it was created.

Again, I suspect this depends on what your definitions of progressive and conservative are. The libertarians on this board would likely consider me a progressive, though I don't consider myself one. And the liberals on this board might consider me center-right, though I consider myself center-left.

But, no, your definition doesn't describe me at all.

I don't want to cut the size of government as a general philosophical principle, so I'm definitely not a conservative or libertarian. But I ALSO don't necessarily want larger government or more government funding (provided by 'other peoples' money, as the stupid dig goes) to deal with every problem, which is the cliched assumption always assigned to liberals.

I want MORE funding for some programs (in some cases a LOT more), I want to cut funding for others, and some I'm ok with keeping as is. In some cases, I want more gov't regulation or oversight (though usually I just want more efficient or robust regulation) and in other cases, I'd like to reduce the scope and reach of government.

I recognize that we can't realistically fund the programs I want funded only by cutting the programs I don't want, nor is it likely we'll be able to fund them by increasing taxes only on those making more than 250K/year (or whatever the stupid politician cut-off for 'rich' is right now), and I do take the deficit into consideration when thinking about taxing and spending. MOST people are going to have to pay more taxes to make my priorities happen. I most certainly will have to pay more taxes, and I vote for the people who are liable to get me closest to my priorities, regardless of party.

I think you might be trying to shoehorn people into categorical labels to no real purpose. People (and the problems we try to solve using government) are complicated. And categories and labels are flawed ways to make assumptions about what people will actually DO.

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3791
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #130 on: August 14, 2016, 05:27:10 PM »

I'm not very good at sarcasm.  I even said it was and it was missed.

I completely agree with you nero. I find it to be the ONLY sensible option.  Of course the devil is in the details.  What gets cut and who gets a tax increase are the never agreeable questions.

I am reminded that you know a deal is fair when nobody is happy with it (a little more sarcasm... am I getting better?).

Ok - I almost asked about the sarcasm, because I wasn't sure whether "/sarcasm" referred to "it will never work" or "good luck with that"... so I wasn't sure whether you were being supportive or dismissive.
Nevertheless, I think you're right that a deal (at least with taxes) might only be fair when nobody is fully happy with the outcome.  Perhaps this is why it's so damn hard to ever get real change done.
If I could wave my magic wand I'd get rid of all deductions across the board and then start with tax brackets that were lower for everyone (but would result in a slight increase in revenue, because of the absence of said-deductions).  But every deduction has powerful proponents and lobbiest fighting to keep it.  Just try getting rid of the mortgage deduction...

This makes me laugh because I totally agree with you, in theory, but then during the scuttled 'grand bargain' discussions of a few years ago, I found myself getting all agitated at the idea of losing the deduction for 401ks and IRAs, even though my objective brain totally supports the plan you mention. I still support it and hold a faint hope that it will be broached again in the event of a Clinton presidency, but I'll have a lot of heartburn if it ever happens because humans are irrational in many ways LOL.

aceyou

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1669
  • Age: 41
    • Life is Good - Aceyou's Journal
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #131 on: August 14, 2016, 08:50:25 PM »
To answer the OP's question, yes, I live by most peoples definition of conservative but vote liberal. 

Oh, another thing about republicans that I find very annoying...their VERY selective use of the "states rights" argument...Basically, if they agree with a federal law, they support it 100% even if the constitution is ambiguous whether it should be handled at the state or federal level.  However, if they disagree with a federal law, they climb up on the states rights pulpit faster than you can believe. 

These are the kind of things that have me voting for people that get called "liberal" lately, whatever that even means, despite living conservative personally by just about any standard.

Agree 100% with this analysis. Also note Texas and NC state legislators limiting local cities' rights to govern as their elected officials see fit. They go on how the closer the government is to the people, the more legitimate it is, except when cities do something "liberal" they don't like.

I don't like throwing good money after bad on corrupt government programs like Democrats do (not all things can be fixed with other people's money), but Republicans' track record on both fiscal and individual liberties is quite poor overall.

Right, I don't like throwing good money after bad either.  Isn't it unfortunate that both parties are doing it, so we can't use that as a determining factor when electing officials currently. 

In a different election cycle, I would seriously consider voting for Gary Johnson in this election, were it not for two considerations:

1.  Donald Trump lacks so much basic kindness/empathy/integrity/reason, that I feel I must vote for the person with the highest chance of beating him. 

2.  Environmental issues are a very high priority for me in any election, and the President has a decent amount of power in this his arena IMO.  However, I will say that the libertarian stance on the environment is FAR more informed than the republican party.  I appreciate that libertarian's acknowledge the presence of global climate change and that is almost certainly a human made phenomenon.  However, their belief that the government is never the answer is the disagreement that I have with the libertarians on this.  I generally respect their call for less government, but I feel this is an instance where governmental collaboration on a global scale really is the optimal solution. 


Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #132 on: August 15, 2016, 07:50:18 AM »
I used to be a republican when I was younger, back when they talked mainly about fiscal responsibility.  But I left when I realized that they weren't, in fact, fiscally responsible.  And right about that time they started amping up the crazy re: social issues.  So now I am a democrat. 

The irony is this - when I was a repub, I ran through money like water.  Spent everything I had and then some.  Nowadays I am all about cutting costs and savings, and am a Dem.  Which is not all that surprising, I guess, when you consider that dems have better fiscal policy/results than Repubs do.

Don't believe it?  Well, neither did I, for a long time.  As someone raised in a very conservative household in a very conservative state, I always thought "Of course the Republicans are better at $$, that's their whole platform!".  But then I saw that data, and the data did not match up.  Eventually I realized that (counterintuitively) that the Dem's policies just work better for the economy. 

Still don't believe me?  Well check out some of these facts:

https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/21-TruthsThat-Prove-Republicans-Have-Been-Wrong-About-Everything

Those aren't facts.  Mostly there just opinions staged as facts, some of them are attacking straw men, and some are just flat out wrong.
Well more have sources attached, do have sources that disagree with those?  Which ones do you say are opinions, which are attacking strawmen?

This is more effort than that "article" deserves, but:

(1) I'm not sure what Republicans claimed about Medicare in the 1960's (and they don't provide a source), but the claim isn't really relevant to anything.  We've had a large working population compared to medicare eligible population, and that has allowed us to tax younger workers to pay for elder health care and it be very manageable.  Now that our medicare eligible population is growing, we'll see how it goes.  As far as its impact on freedom, it does curtail freedom.  Doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad program depending on what your values are, but even if you are concerned about curtailment of freedom, the real concern will be what happens when we can no longer pretend that the medicare tax is enough to pay for the program. 

(2) & (3) attack the same straw man and employ the same logical fallacy.  Nobody (or nobody serious) claims that small changes in marginal tax rates are the sole determinant of the direction of the economy.  And nobody that understands logic would claim that just because a tax rate change came before an economic uptick or downturn, it caused the uptick or downturn. 

(4) the Brade bill had pretty much no impact on crime.  Crime was dropping before the ban and continued after it expired.  This isn't really controversial and the fact that they are trying to sell the Brady Act as responsible for the drop in crime from the 90's on shows that the author is not even attempting to be intellectually honest. 

(5) & (6) are unsourced and I'm not going to try to track them down.  I think the vast majority of people would agree that with hindsight, Iraq was a mistake.  I don't think there is as much agreement as to what the credible evidence showed at the time as far as WMDs. 

(7) is purely opinion.  Some people think enhanced interrogation provides more benefits than costs; others don't.  Producing one anecdote in what is intended to be a persuasive writing seems almost worse than providing none, especially when the anecdote reflects a possibility that all advocates of enhanced interrogation would recognize as a risk/draw back to the method. 

(8) Cheney's statement isn't sourced, but one errant prediction doesn't tell much about the parties.  And it's especially dense to talk about no deaths on American soil from Al Qaeda while ignoring the deaths from Islamic terrorism.  People really weren't concerned that they are going to be killed by Al Qaeda as opposed to ISIS or a lone-wolf islamic terrorist.  I feel confident that the vast majority of people are concerned about they or their loved ones being killed by terrorism period.   

(9) Straw man.  Generally, people don't doubt that stimulus can increase GDP in the short run (I'm not even sure that proponents of Ricardian equivalence think stimulus can't increase GDP in the short run).  The question is whether the stimulus is worth the costs, both in future taxes and in moral hazard.

(10)  I'm fairly certain most republicans did not say Obama should be impeached for Benghazi.  I also don't think a house report is worth very much when you're talking about clandestine operations.  I would not put much stock in the claim that the CIA wasn't shipping arms through benghazi.

(11) This isn't even an argument.  I could just as easily say Democrats said increased government spending wouldn't harm the economy, but then we had the Savings and Loan crisis.  But regardless, neither Savings and Loan nor banks were lightly regulated.  They were heavily regulated and regulated in a way that encouraged regulatory arbitrage and everybody managing risk in the same way, which caused systemic instability. 

(12) The same logical fallacy.  The fact that the economy grew doesn't mean that obamacare didn't hurt the economy.  I think it's pretty much a consensus that obamacare costs some jobs.  The CBO projects it as something like the equivalent of 2.3 million jobs of hours not worked due to obamacare.  Whether you think it's worth it depends on how many jobs you think it cost and what the benefits are.

(13) Kind of a silly prediction to begin with (if you know what impact a politician is going to have on gas prices, you should bet the market, not play politics), but they were attacking things that Obama supported that will generally increase the price of gas.  Luckily fracking exploded and had a big enough impact to make other gov't policies more or less moot in the short term.     

(14), (15)  Another statement that ignores the counterfactual (or lack thereof). 

(16) Obama being not being able to politically raise taxes doesn't mean he doesn't want to raise taxes.  And Obama did manage to raise taxes on most americans through Obamacare. 

(17) Republicans have never claimed anything regarding "trickle down" to my knowledge.  That was a derogatory term made up by democrats.  Also ignoring the counterfactual.

(18)  If anybody thought the keystone pipeline by itself would move gas prices sky high, they didn't know what they were talking about.  Not approving it was bad (both for the economy and the environment), but it was a relatively minor thing.  It's like the import export bank; the harm isn't that big, it's just such a terrible sign that we can't get the easiest of policies right. 

(19) Ignores two branches of government.  Historically (at least before Obama, not sure since then), the economy has done best with republican congress and senate and a democrat president.  But even that doesn't tell you that much because there are such large lags between policy enactment, implementation, and results.  I think there's going to be even less correlation in the future as there is so much dead weight encompassed in regulations  and bureaucracy that are not easily eliminated.

(20) They are just flat out wrong on what the evidence on minimum wage shows.  The evidence largely shows that small increases of minimum wage results in small decreases in low wage employment.  There are a couple of outliers, but the evidence is largely consistent with the theory. 

 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Live conservatively but vote liberal?
« Reply #133 on: August 15, 2016, 09:26:24 AM »
This is more effort than that "article" deserves, but:

(1) I'm not sure what Republicans claimed about Medicare in the 1960's (and they don't provide a source), but the claim isn't really relevant to anything.  We've had a large working population compared to medicare eligible population, and that has allowed us to tax younger workers to pay for elder health care and it be very manageable.  Now that our medicare eligible population is growing, we'll see how it goes.  As far as its impact on freedom, it does curtail freedom.  Doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad program depending on what your values are, but even if you are concerned about curtailment of freedom, the real concern will be what happens when we can no longer pretend that the medicare tax is enough to pay for the program. 

(2) & (3) attack the same straw man and employ the same logical fallacy.  Nobody (or nobody serious) claims that small changes in marginal tax rates are the sole determinant of the direction of the economy.  And nobody that understands logic would claim that just because a tax rate change came before an economic uptick or downturn, it caused the uptick or downturn. 

(4) the Brade bill had pretty much no impact on crime.  Crime was dropping before the ban and continued after it expired.  This isn't really controversial and the fact that they are trying to sell the Brady Act as responsible for the drop in crime from the 90's on shows that the author is not even attempting to be intellectually honest. 

(5) & (6) are unsourced and I'm not going to try to track them down.  I think the vast majority of people would agree that with hindsight, Iraq was a mistake.  I don't think there is as much agreement as to what the credible evidence showed at the time as far as WMDs. 

(7) is purely opinion.  Some people think enhanced interrogation provides more benefits than costs; others don't.  Producing one anecdote in what is intended to be a persuasive writing seems almost worse than providing none, especially when the anecdote reflects a possibility that all advocates of enhanced interrogation would recognize as a risk/draw back to the method. 

(8) Cheney's statement isn't sourced, but one errant prediction doesn't tell much about the parties.  And it's especially dense to talk about no deaths on American soil from Al Qaeda while ignoring the deaths from Islamic terrorism.  People really weren't concerned that they are going to be killed by Al Qaeda as opposed to ISIS or a lone-wolf islamic terrorist.  I feel confident that the vast majority of people are concerned about they or their loved ones being killed by terrorism period.   

(9) Straw man.  Generally, people don't doubt that stimulus can increase GDP in the short run (I'm not even sure that proponents of Ricardian equivalence think stimulus can't increase GDP in the short run).  The question is whether the stimulus is worth the costs, both in future taxes and in moral hazard.

(10)  I'm fairly certain most republicans did not say Obama should be impeached for Benghazi.  I also don't think a house report is worth very much when you're talking about clandestine operations.  I would not put much stock in the claim that the CIA wasn't shipping arms through benghazi.

(11) This isn't even an argument.  I could just as easily say Democrats said increased government spending wouldn't harm the economy, but then we had the Savings and Loan crisis.  But regardless, neither Savings and Loan nor banks were lightly regulated.  They were heavily regulated and regulated in a way that encouraged regulatory arbitrage and everybody managing risk in the same way, which caused systemic instability. 

(12) The same logical fallacy.  The fact that the economy grew doesn't mean that obamacare didn't hurt the economy.  I think it's pretty much a consensus that obamacare costs some jobs.  The CBO projects it as something like the equivalent of 2.3 million jobs of hours not worked due to obamacare.  Whether you think it's worth it depends on how many jobs you think it cost and what the benefits are.

(13) Kind of a silly prediction to begin with (if you know what impact a politician is going to have on gas prices, you should bet the market, not play politics), but they were attacking things that Obama supported that will generally increase the price of gas.  Luckily fracking exploded and had a big enough impact to make other gov't policies more or less moot in the short term.     

(14), (15)  Another statement that ignores the counterfactual (or lack thereof). 

(16) Obama being not being able to politically raise taxes doesn't mean he doesn't want to raise taxes.  And Obama did manage to raise taxes on most americans through Obamacare. 

(17) Republicans have never claimed anything regarding "trickle down" to my knowledge.  That was a derogatory term made up by democrats.  Also ignoring the counterfactual.

(18)  If anybody thought the keystone pipeline by itself would move gas prices sky high, they didn't know what they were talking about.  Not approving it was bad (both for the economy and the environment), but it was a relatively minor thing.  It's like the import export bank; the harm isn't that big, it's just such a terrible sign that we can't get the easiest of policies right. 

(19) Ignores two branches of government.  Historically (at least before Obama, not sure since then), the economy has done best with republican congress and senate and a democrat president.  But even that doesn't tell you that much because there are such large lags between policy enactment, implementation, and results.  I think there's going to be even less correlation in the future as there is so much dead weight encompassed in regulations  and bureaucracy that are not easily eliminated.

(20) They are just flat out wrong on what the evidence on minimum wage shows.  The evidence largely shows that small increases of minimum wage results in small decreases in low wage employment.  There are a couple of outliers, but the evidence is largely consistent with the theory.

Right on.  While I don't agree with your viewpoint, I can totally respect the criticism of the points listed.

My only beef with your post is your use of the euphemism 'enhanced interrogation' to refer to the illegal torture that the US engages in.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!