Cain says God persuaded him to run for president

[redsamurai]

Nope, that's a key difference between pragmatists and ideologues. We (pragmatists) learn.

Initially, I liked the nation-building experiment Bush tried in Iraq. I'll freely admit that. But I learned that nation-building costs too much in lives and dollars.

Now, I've learned. I'm definitely more hands-off when it comes to foreign policy than I used to be.

lol@initially. Unless by "initially" you mean up until last week.

 

[mrplunkey]

lol@initially. Unless by "initially" you mean up until last week.

Nope. I realized that mistake well before Bush left office.

And I'll even admit I still feel drawn toward the idea of nation building. But the reality is, it's almost impossible to impose one set of values on another set of people.

If we find ourselves with a couple extra trillion dollars and a few thousand people willing to die for it, maybe we should go straighten Syria out. Or Iran. Or Egypt. Or Libya. Or...

 

[redsamurai]

Nope. I realized that mistake well before Bush left office.
.

when you wrote this did were your kids standing in teh doorway with a "someone smell that shit" look on their face?

 

[Headholio]

Initially, I liked the nation-building experiment Bush tried in Iraq. I'll freely admit that. But I learned that nation-building costs too much in lives and dollars.

Now, I've learned. I'm definitely more hands-off when it comes to foreign policy than I used to be.

See Plunkey, that's why you shouldn't vote for dumb people.
It's ok if you were wrong. You're just a guy who likes to pretend he has an understanding of things. Kind of like Bush. But Bush was President. Presidents are supposed to have vision, a deep understanding of issues, and the ability to make good decisions when faced with a very complex set of facts. You can't do that, which is ok. Bush couldn't do that, which was a disaster for America.
Think about the group of Republican dim wits who want to be President and how they could handle a very complex problem that could effect the lives of millions. Scary huh? Think about that in the voting booth people! Stupid is not ok for a Presidential candidate!

Before you tell me how smart they are, I'll just point out that at least 4 of them said that God told them to run for President!

 

[mrplunkey]

See Plunkey, that's why you shouldn't vote for dumb people.
It's ok if you were wrong. You're just a guy who likes to pretend he has an understanding of things. Kind of like Bush. But Bush was President. Presidents are supposed to have vision, a deep understanding of issues, and the ability to make good decisions when faced with a very complex set of facts. You can't do that, which is ok. Bush couldn't do that, which was a disaster for America.
Think about the group of Republican dim wits who want to be President and how they could handle a very complex problem that could effect the lives of millions. Scary huh? Think about that in the voting booth people! Stupid is not ok for a Presidential candidate!

Before you tell me how smart they are, I'll just point out that at least 4 of them said that God told them to run for President!

Oh as an atheist (but not an evangelical one), I'll admit I'm not a fan of the Jebus freaks. I have a huge libertarian streak as well. So once working american's aren't paying for it, I'd be agreeable to free love, free drugs and free capitalism.

Here's the rub: Elections are about choices. And given the GOP field, any of the candidates (and I do mean ANY) would be better than Barry. People will be studying the damage he's done well into the 22nd century. We'll all be dead, but he'll make a great case study one day.

 

[Headholio]

Oh as an atheist (but not an evangelical one), I'll admit I'm not a fan of the Jebus freaks. I have a huge libertarian streak as well. So once working american's aren't paying for it, I'd be agreeable to free love, free drugs and free capitalism.

Oh, good for you.

Here's the rub: Elections are about choices. And given the GOP field, any of the candidates (and I do mean ANY) would be better than Barry. People will be studying the damage he's done well into the 22nd century. We'll all be dead, but he'll make a great case study one day.

Yeah, you'll have to explain how Obama did more damage than his predecessor who crashed the economy and started an unnecessary war based on lies. I'm listening

 

[binö]

Oh, good for you.



Yeah, you'll have to explain how Obama did more damage than his predecessor who crashed the economy and started an unnecessary war based on lies. I'm listening

1. housing market crash, which triggered the economic crash, was not bush's fault not sure how you can link the two.
2. All your good bros supported the iraq war, everyone of them did even al gore...and the jury is still out on the necessity of the event...if iraq blossoms into a stable ME state, then it was a success and worth it...

 

[mrplunkey]

Oh, good for you.



Yeah, you'll have to explain how Obama did more damage than his predecessor who crashed the economy and started an unnecessary war based on lies. I'm listening

Barry did damage on a number of fronts, but as an employer/business owner I can seriously relate to one of them.

Taxes are an ongoing negotiation, but there has been a relative peace between business and government since at long as I can professionally remember (i.e. 1985). Most businesses simply paid their taxes, less a few strategic deductions.

And even then, large, multi-national companies like GE would mitigate some or all of their tax exposure. Individual high-wealth people (billions, not hundreds of millions) would also mitigate their exposure (sometimes but not always by renouncing citizenship).

But here's what's different: Tax mitigation strategy used to (in general, I realize there are exceptions) be a strategy for billionaires. Maybe a few $250M-$1B people did it, but usually the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.

Since 2009, tax mitigation strategy has moved to the masses. Now, people in the $10M+ range are implementing tax mitigation strategies. And while their taxes haven't gone up post-Obama, the specter of class warfare and looming tax increases have sent them scurrying for shelters.

So to answer your original question: One of the ways Barry has damaged the US is by undermining the long-term tax base.

 

[Headholio]

1. housing market crash, which triggered the economic crash, was not bush's fault not sure how you can link the two.

I thought you righties were all about personal responsibility? It is Bushes economy. You can't dodge that.
Lack of regulation of housing loans was the problem. And republicans were in charge until 2007. In 2007 Dems took over ways and means and tried to regulate no documentation loans, loan to values over 100%, etc and republicans fought it. It was too late. To say you can't link Bush to the housing crisis is laughable.

2. All your good bros supported the iraq war, everyone of them did even al gore...and the jury is still out on the necessity of the event...if iraq blossoms into a stable ME state, then it was a success and worth it...

Authorization was given to Bush for military action as a last resort. At the time, no one really knew what an imbecile he was, and that he would invent his own reasons, to find any way possible to go to war. I agree dems should be held accountable for buying into the Bush Cheney Rumsfeld deception, but we were still licking our wounds over 9-11 and dems miscalculated the political effect of disagreeing with the President who want to take all those pretend bad guys and "bring them to jushtish" (Read with Texas drawl)before they could obtain NUCULAR weapons.

 

[Headholio]

Barry did damage on a number of fronts, but as an employer/business owner I can seriously relate to one of them.

Taxes are an ongoing negotiation, but there has been a relative peace between business and government since at long as I can professionally remember (i.e. 1985). Most businesses simply paid their taxes, less a few strategic deductions.

And even then, large, multi-national companies like GE would mitigate some or all of their tax exposure. Individual high-wealth people (billions, not hundreds of millions) would also mitigate their exposure (sometimes but not always by renouncing citizenship).

But here's what's different: Tax mitigation strategy used to (in general, I realize there are exceptions) be a strategy for billionaires. Maybe a few $250M-$1B people did it, but usually the juice wasn't worth the squeeze.

Since 2009, tax mitigation strategy has moved to the masses. Now, people in the $10M+ range are implementing tax mitigation strategies. And while their taxes haven't gone up post-Obama, the specter of class warfare and looming tax increases have sent them scurrying for shelters.

So to answer your original question: One of the ways Barry has damaged the US is by undermining the long-term tax base.

Oh, so back in the day, when taxes were 70-90% for the upper class (1930s to 1980s), no one was trying what you call "tax mitigation strategies". Or even During Bush 1 to Clinton, when the top tax rate was higher than now (39%).

But now that the black guy is President, and taxes for the rich are historically low, while their income is historically high, the rich are more motivated than ever to implement these strategies?

BZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

SORRY. PLEASE TRY AGAIN.