Author Topic: Marco Rubio Master Thread (Read 58957 times)

Kat Kid · « **Reply #500 on:** February 10, 2016, 02:41:25 PM »

Is Larouche running?

chuckjames · « **Reply #501 on:** February 11, 2016, 12:27:58 PM »

Rubio's tax plan would cost 6.8 trillion in revenue over a decade. But the economic growth that will happen because of it when we are all dead will be mind boggling.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000606-an-analysis-of-marco-rubios-tax-plan.pdf

sys · « **Reply #502 on:** February 11, 2016, 12:31:49 PM »

Quote from: chuckjames on February 11, 2016, 12:27:58 PM

Rubio's tax plan would cost 6.8 trillion in revenue over a decade. But the economic growth that will happen because of it when we are all dead will be mind boggling.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000606-an-analysis-of-marco-rubios-tax-plan.pdf

there was a good piece, i think on 538, about how concerns about deficits and debts no longer resonate with voters. all of the candidates, pub and crat, have tax and spending plans that will add substantially to the debt. it's no longer considered a problem.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #503 on:** February 11, 2016, 12:33:00 PM »

It's not a problem, they are correct

Kat Kid · « **Reply #504 on:** February 11, 2016, 12:33:59 PM »

Also, people rightly acknowledge that these plans have to pass through Congress, which is largely in gridlock, so people ignore the plans and focus on the vision and beliefs of the candidates.

chuckjames · « **Reply #505 on:** February 11, 2016, 12:36:43 PM »

Quote from: sys on February 11, 2016, 12:31:49 PM

Quote from: chuckjames on February 11, 2016, 12:27:58 PM
Rubio's tax plan would cost 6.8 trillion in revenue over a decade. But the economic growth that will happen because of it when we are all dead will be mind boggling.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000606-an-analysis-of-marco-rubios-tax-plan.pdf

there was a good piece, i think on 538, about how concerns about deficits and debts no longer resonate with voters. all of the candidates, pub and crat, have tax and spending plans that will add substantially to the debt. it's no longer considered a problem.

Which is always funny to me, because pubs always talk about how much they care about the deficit/debt, then release tax plans that will explode both.

Also I don't think it's that big of a problem yet, but at some point I would like to see the deficit curtailed.

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #506 on:** February 11, 2016, 01:09:45 PM »

Quote from: Kat Kid on February 11, 2016, 12:33:59 PM

Also, people rightly acknowledge that these plans have to pass through Congress, which is largely in gridlock, so people ignore the plans and focus on the vision and beliefs of the candidates.

I don't think a tax cut would have a lot of trouble getting passed if the republicans can keep control of congress.

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #507 on:** February 11, 2016, 01:14:12 PM »

Is this an analysis of only a tax plan, or a budget? See, a tax plan is only half the equation. It's actually significantly less than half the equation when it comes to debt reduction, as historically the amount of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has stayed remarkable consistent regardless of tax rates. What is more important is (a) health of the economy (mo' money mo' tax revenue, and tax reductions would help the economy - by how much is debatable) and (b) reduced spending.

So to simply say "this tax plan adds ____ to the deficit" is pretty meaningless.

Granted, it is far easier for Republicans to propose "tax plans" for how much they are going to reduce taxes, than it is to propose detailed spending cuts.

Ideally, we should be slightly reducing and significantly simplifying our tax code, while cutting spending by about 5% per year for the next several years. That's just common sense and it really shouldn't be hard to achieve except for, you know, politicians in general and particularly Democrats.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #508 on:** February 11, 2016, 01:18:06 PM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 11, 2016, 01:14:12 PM

Is this an analysis of only a tax plan, or a budget? See, a tax plan is only half the equation. It's actually significantly less than half the equation when it comes to debt reduction, as historically the amount of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has stayed remarkable consistent regardless of tax rates. What is more important is (a) health of the economy (mo' money mo' tax revenue, and tax reductions would help the economy - by how much is debatable) and (b) reduced spending.

So to simply say "this tax plan adds ____ to the deficit" is pretty meaningless.

Granted, it is far easier for Republicans to propose "tax plans" for how much they are going to reduce taxes, than it is to propose detailed spending cuts.

Ideally, we should be slightly reducing and significantly simplifying our tax code, while cutting spending by about 5% per year for the next several years. That's just common sense and it really shouldn't be hard to achieve except for, you know, politicians in general and particularly Democrats.

Kat Kid · « **Reply #509 on:** February 11, 2016, 01:32:51 PM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 11, 2016, 01:14:12 PM

Is this an analysis of only a tax plan, or a budget? See, a tax plan is only half the equation. It's actually significantly less than half the equation when it comes to debt reduction, as historically the amount of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has stayed remarkable consistent regardless of tax rates. What is more important is (a) health of the economy (mo' money mo' tax revenue, and tax reductions would help the economy - by how much is debatable) and (b) reduced spending.

So to simply say "this tax plan adds ____ to the deficit" is pretty meaningless.

Granted, it is far easier for Republicans to propose "tax plans" for how much they are going to reduce taxes, than it is to propose detailed spending cuts.

Ideally, we should be slightly reducing and significantly simplifying our tax code, while cutting spending by about 5% per year for the next several years. That's just common sense and it really shouldn't be hard to achieve except for, you know, politicians in general and particularly Democrats.

Cruz, Rubio, Trump all want to massively increase military spending. MASSIVELY. There is no possible way they would hold spending that much if they were forced to clarify their actual budget.

wetwillie · « **Reply #510 on:** February 11, 2016, 01:43:26 PM »

If I want to keep military at current levels is kasich my guy?

catastrophe · « **Reply #511 on:** February 11, 2016, 01:44:35 PM »

Yea, you cannot get close to a balanced budget without either raising taxes or cutting military spending. Just the amount of money we spend on keeping nuclear missiles ready to launch at a moment's notice is ridiculous.

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #512 on:** February 11, 2016, 01:53:35 PM »

Quote from: Kat Kid on February 11, 2016, 01:32:51 PM

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 11, 2016, 01:14:12 PM
Is this an analysis of only a tax plan, or a budget? See, a tax plan is only half the equation. It's actually significantly less than half the equation when it comes to debt reduction, as historically the amount of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has stayed remarkable consistent regardless of tax rates. What is more important is (a) health of the economy (mo' money mo' tax revenue, and tax reductions would help the economy - by how much is debatable) and (b) reduced spending.

So to simply say "this tax plan adds ____ to the deficit" is pretty meaningless.

Granted, it is far easier for Republicans to propose "tax plans" for how much they are going to reduce taxes, than it is to propose detailed spending cuts.

Ideally, we should be slightly reducing and significantly simplifying our tax code, while cutting spending by about 5% per year for the next several years. That's just common sense and it really shouldn't be hard to achieve except for, you know, politicians in general and particularly Democrats.

Cruz, Rubio, Trump all want to massively increase military spending. MASSIVELY. There is no possible way they would hold spending that much if they were forced to clarify their actual budget.

I agree, we should be focused on making our military more efficient. Still, I bet I could come up with a way to both increase military spending and decrease spending overall...

Yard Dog · « **Reply #513 on:** February 11, 2016, 02:52:10 PM »

https://twitter.com/SCforMarco/status/697804476447469568

Rubio 20 - 16 BABY!

Yard Dog · « **Reply #514 on:** February 11, 2016, 02:57:19 PM »

Marco kills it on Hannity:

s

He takes responsibility for why he did poorly and they go on to discuss how silly the attack on him was in the first place. Crazy that Jeb spent 40 million in NH - 10 million alone on Rubio attack ads. Rubio only spent around 10 million and left the state with the same amount of delegates.

ChiComCat · « **Reply #515 on:** February 11, 2016, 02:58:29 PM »

s

He takes responsibility for why he did poorly and they go on to discuss how silly the attack on him was in the first place. Crazy that Jeb spent 40 million in NH - 10 million alone on Rubio attack ads. Rubio only spent around 10 million and left the state with the same amount of delegates.

If Rubio's benchmark for campaign success is Jeb then he's doing it wrong