Bridenstine vs. Sullivan

[Teatownclown]

Sounds like Frankenstein which concerns me.
http://www.jimbridenstine.com/blog/05/bridenstine-campaign-announces-internal-polling-results/

as of May 23:
John Sullivan–221 (34.16%)
Jim Bridenstine–213 (32.92%)
Undecided 213–(32.92%)



Pretty close. I'm rooting for the real conservative. Time for change.

Conan, too bad you have to sit this one out. 

[sgrizzle]

Sounds like a TLC reality show or SyFy channel original movie.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Shows how ignorant 30% + can be.  Know nothing about the guy, but like him anyway....well, that's typical for Oklahoma.
Sullivan is plenty bad, but how could 1/3 possibly know enough yet to make that kind of decision.  Well, it sounds like another case of "anybody but XXXXX".

[nathanm]

You know what would be awesome? A real Republican to vote for. Yes, Virginia, I do actually agree with a lot of the old Republican platform, before they all turned into zombies wandering around shouting "Ayyyyyyyyyyyynnnnnnnn...... Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyynnnnnnnnnnn!"

Unfortunately, Bridenstine seems to fall directly into the tax relief is bad unless the benefits accrue mainly to the donor class trap. I guess that's what happens when you're funded by a group that is largely funded by the Koch brothers.

Apparently, he also hired someone who has no grasp of basic logic:

He has vowed to oppose any legislation that adds to the national debt. In fact, he has said that he would urge his fellow congressmen to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to raise taxes.

Those two things are diametrically opposed, not complementary.

There is one thing on his website I agree wholeheartedly with. He stated he wouldn't vote on bills before reading them. Good call. Hopefully, if elected, he is willing to hire enough staffers to turn "clause 3 of section 5 of 18 USC 2245 is amended by inserting 'blah blah blah' after the word 'baz'" into something readable so that he can actually make good on that promise.

Edited to add: The Super PAC supporting him seems not to be very Super. It looks more like some sort of weird tax dodge than a legitimate PAC.

[Red Arrow]

He has vowed to oppose any legislation that adds to the national debt. In fact, he has said that he would urge his fellow congressmen to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to raise taxes.
Those two things are diametrically opposed, not complementary.

You are forgetting the option of cutting the crap out of everything.  I don't think that would be too wise (surprised?) but not adding to the national debt and wanting a supermajority to raise taxes are not necessarily diametrically opposed if you step outside your box.

[nathanm]

I don't think that would be too wise (surprised?) but not adding to the national debt and wanting a supermajority to raise taxes are not necessarily diametrically opposed if you step outside your box.

The box I'm in is the box of being informed by the experience of places like California, where a supermajority is in fact already required to raise taxes and they find themselves with nowhere near enough money to pay for all the roads, prisons, and schools, much less anything else the taxpayers of California demand be funded out of thin air. For all the complaints about high taxes in California they don't manage to collect much money (relative to the size of their economy).

[Red Arrow]

The box I'm in is the box of being informed by the experience of places like California, where a supermajority is in fact already required to raise taxes and they find themselves with nowhere near enough money to pay for all the roads, prisons, and schools, much less anything else the taxpayers of California demand be funded out of thin air. For all the complaints about high taxes in California they don't manage to collect much money (relative to the size of their economy).

As I indicated, another box would be to cut the spending.  No one would like that whether they admit it or not but it is a popular item and one that will make me think twice before voting for Bridenstein.

If you Democrats can put up someone I could vote for, I may jump ship in the general election. 

Heiron:  Note that I said someone I could vote for, not someone you could vote for.

[nathanm]

As I indicated, another box would be to cut the spending.

They have. The point is that it's nearly impossible to get 2/3rds of their elected representatives to vote to increase taxes no matter how the budget deficit is. They also have the complication of the public voting for initiatives that cost money, which only requires 51%, unlike the tax increase. At least we wouldn't have that on the national level. But in California's case, cutting spending isn't really possible because so much of it can't be changed without another ballot initiative.

[heironymouspasparagus]

As I indicated, another box would be to cut the spending.  No one would like that whether they admit it or not but it is a popular item and one that will make me think twice before voting for Bridenstein.

If you Democrats can put up someone I could vote for, I may jump ship in the general election. 

Heiron:  Note that I said someone I could vote for, not someone you could vote for.

I could vote for Coburn.  And have.  Could you vote for Boren?


Since you are such a huge fan of cutting spending... and since we have already seen the deficit cut in half in the last 3 years...and the increases in spending are at ALL TIME lows....how about a little list of maybe the top 3 or 4 specific areas where you would cut right now that would make a real difference in the remaining deficit?  And in a more general line, what would you do once that deficit is gone to start reducing the debt?  Specifically.

[Red Arrow]

Since you are such a huge fan of cutting spending... and since we have already seen the deficit cut in half in the last 3 years...and the increases in spending are at ALL TIME lows....

Your statement depends on who's interpretation of the numbers you believe.

I believe there will be a place where spending will be as low as most Americans will be willing to go.  It may not be below present spending levels.  I don't know where all the bridges to nowhere are hiding but there are more there.  I am sure of that.  When we finally get to raising taxes, I believe everyone chips in some.  Even the bottom.

My brother and I both belonged to a flying club.  My brother wanted to go out to eat with some other friends about once a week but couldn't pay his dues to the flying club.  He finally decided to quit the flying club.  (There are actually more details than that but that's all you're going to get.)   The point of this is that if everyone has to pay for the goodies, some of the goodies may become less important.  When everyone has to pay, which goodies become less important will become more apparent.

[nathanm]

When we finally get to raising taxes, I believe everyone chips in some.  Even the bottom.

Not a fan of those originators of Western civilization, then? I didn't know this until recently, but progressive taxation goes all the way back to Athens. After a few hundred years of a flat tax weighing too heavily on the productive class (and at the time, they were far more connected to production than we are now, being without mechanization) they changed it to a progressive system. The folks at the bottom paid zero. Socialists.

[Red Arrow]

Not a fan of those originators of Western civilization, then? I didn't know this until recently, but progressive taxation goes all the way back to Athens. After a few hundred years of a flat tax weighing too heavily on the productive class (and at the time, they were far more connected to production than we are now, being without mechanization) they changed it to a progressive system. The folks at the bottom paid zero. Socialists.

In our case, chipping in could mean just a reduction in your earned income credits.

I have stated in the past that I believe in a flat tax with a certain amount at the bottom exempt from income tax for everyone, including gazillionairs.  This in fact makes the tax progressive as the bottom level earners would pay little or no tax. Yes, this is just the income tax.

As a for instance: (The numbers chosen are for ease of demonstration. I don't know what the real numbers would be.)
20% tax on any earnings above $10,000.

Someone earning $10,000 pays ZERO
Someone earning $15,000 pays $1000; effective rate is 6.67%
Someone earning $100,000 pays $18,000; effective rate of 18%
Someone earning $1,000,000 pays $198,000; effective rate of 19.8%
Someone earning $45,000,000 pays $8,998,000; effective rate of 19.9955556%

We could continue to pay people for having children by raising the number of tax free dollars for having dependents if we choose.

[RecycleMichael]

We could continue to pay people for having children by raising the number of tax free dollars for having dependents if we choose.

I'm planning next year to be claiming seven or eight of the TulsaNow posters as dependents already.

Whose your daddy?

[Red Arrow]

I'm planning next year to be claiming seven or eight of the TulsaNow posters as dependents already.

Whose your daddy?

Can't tell, it's too embarrassing but I am already claimed.

[nathanm]

Something else I didn't find out until last night: how the poverty line is calculated. 3 times what you need to buy the CPI basket of food, apparently. We are not one of the countries that calculates it relative to average income.

We already have a flat tax when all tax is taken into account. Why does it matter if the individual components are not flat?

It's not as if we aren't losing around a trillion dollars a year to tax evasion as it is. Lowering the top tax rate did nothing about that, unfortunately. (I would have expected it to reduce the amount of evasion at least somewhat) That number has only grown since the Bush tax cuts. I'd rather go after the tax evaders first, then see where we stand and make adjustments from there.