Interesting rant by Gary Hart.

I don't agree with a lot of what he wrote, but Gary Hart makes a lot of good points:

http://time.com/3937860/gary-hart-america-corruption/

A word of advice. It is both stupid and irrelevant to point out, in response to this article, that Gary Hart liked messing around with women outside marriage.

It may be true, but it does NOTHING to address his points. Having an affair with Donna Rice does not make his point about the corrupting influence of lobbyists any less valid. So stay on topic.

I think he concerns about Citizen United are overblown. Just because people formed a corporation to represent their viewpoint collectively, it doesn't reduce their first amendment rights.

I think, if anything, we need to eliminate the restrictions on giving money to the political parties. When the Democrats and Republican parties could not control the purse strings of the candidates, the money just flowed in from different directions via PACs.

So now candidates are LESS beholding to a national agenda set by the political parties and are more concerned with pleasing donors, regardless of conflicts with the higher principles of their party.

Want to reduce the influence of money in politics? Then reduce the power (and budget) of the federal government so there are not so many things the feds can do on behalf of donors.

In other words, cut spending a LOT.

Also, eliminate ALL deductions and other benefits from the tax code. That is what lobbyists live for.

Raise the top income rates a little and raise the inheritance tax rate a LOT. We don't need to pass billions from one generation of the Walton family to the next.

And if any company is too big too fail, it shouldn't exist in the first place. After the 2008 financial collapse, we should have busted all the big banks and Wall Street brokerages houses into a hundred or more smaller companies. It is not too late.

Bernie and Warren have been saying that for years.

...that Gary Hart liked messing around with women outside marriage.... Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, but it wasn't "messing" around that was his undoing ...

... his D.C. mistress was respected and well liked for her charm and intelligence.

His stupidity of cheating on his mistress with a bimbo ... was his demise.

His wife could forgive him, but the "inner circle" could not.

Bernie and Warren have been saying that for years. Originally Posted by shanm

Not really.

Both are in favor of high income taxes at the top rates. Not a little bump. And also high capital gains rates. Any tax rate that is so high that it reduces incentives to work and invest will backfire on you eventually. Just look at the European economies.

That is why I like high inheritance taxes. It doesn't affect you while you are alive and your kids didn't do anything to earn that money, so they aren't losing anything.

And I do not buy the ridiculous argument that all the rich will not work as hard or invest as much if they cannot pass all of it on to their children. I am pretty sure they would still do everything they did to get rich in the first place because they still get to enjoy it themselves.

Also, there is NO chance Sanders or Warren will do anything to reduce the size of government. If anything, it will be the opposite.

It's a Catch-22.

The bigger government gets, the more influence and control it has on people's lives. And the more influence and control it has on people's lives, the more that clever and self-interested individuals are going to try to influence the government to act on their behalf. You can't escape it. So just avoid big, powerful government in the first place.

It is both stupid and irrelevant to point out, in response to this article, that Gary Hart liked messing around with women outside marriage.

. Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, but it wasn't "messing" around that was his undoing ...

... his D.C. mistress was respected and well liked for her charm and intelligence.

His stupidity of cheating on his mistress with a bimbo ... was his demise.

His wife could forgive him, but the "inner circle" could not. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Apparently, LLIdiot likes the idea that he is both "stupid" and "irrelevant".

No, but it wasn't "messing" around that was his undoing ...

... his D.C. mistress was respected and well liked for her charm and intelligence.

His stupidity of cheating on his mistress with a bimbo ... was his demise.

His wife could forgive him, but the "inner circle" could not. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Who are you talking about?

Donna Rice wasn't a bimbo. She graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa as a biology major.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Rice_Hughes

The fact that she also was attractive and modeled doesn't make her a bimbo.

So who was the "charming" mistress to whom you are referring? Enlighten us.

Apparently, LLIdiot likes the idea that he is both "stupid" and "irrelevant". Originally Posted by shanm

I think you are off-point too.

I don't think LL is criticizing Hart, he might even like him.

He is just pointing out, somewhat conspiratorially, that there was something else at play in bringing Hart down. Not just Donna Rice.

So his post is confusing more than anything else.

Not really.

Both are in favor of high income taxes at the top rates. Not a little bump. And also high capital gains rates. Anything tax rate that reduces incentives to work and invest will backfire on you.

That is why I like high inheritance taxes. It doesn't affect you while you are alive and your kids didn't to anything to earn that money so they aren't losing anything.

And I do not buy the ridiculous argument that all the rich will not work as hard or invest as much if they cannot pass all of it on to their children. I am pretty sure they would still do everything they did to get rich in the first place because they still get to enjoy it themselves.

Also, there is NO chance Sanders or Warren will do anything to reduce the size of government. If anything, it will be the opposite.

It's a Catch-22.

The bigger government gets, the more influence and control it has on people's lives. And the more influence and control it has on people's lives, the more that clever and self-interested individuals are going to try to influence the government to act on their behalf. You can't escape it. So just avoid big, powerful government in the first place. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Capital gains tax rates could definitely follow the same argument. You can say that it de-incentivizes investment but that would only be half true. You pretty much DON'T work for your capital gains, you have companies doing that for you. Would it matter to you if you paid a little more tax on something you essentially haven't worked for?
Most of the rich get the majority of their income from capital gains, which allows them to pay proportionately less of their income in taxes, which is sort of ridiculous if you think about it. If a millionaire and someone earning fifty grand are paying 50%(of their total income) in taxes, the millionaire will still be doing pretty well for himself while the 50 grander will be fucked.

Income tax is something that does need to be reduced, like you said. People work for that money and so that is an incentive to work harder and make more.

And when you say big government, you have to define it properly. You say that there are these "too big to fail" companies...well, only by government overreach will we be able to take down these companies. Government just needs to be big in the right places.

Not really.

Both are in favor of high income taxes at the top rates. Not a little bump. And also high capital gains rates. Any tax rate that is so high that it reduces incentives to work and invest will backfire on you eventually. Just look at the European economies.

That is why I like high inheritance taxes. It doesn't affect you while you are alive and your kids didn't do anything to earn that money, so they aren't losing anything.

And I do not buy the ridiculous argument that all the rich will not work as hard or invest as much if they cannot pass all of it on to their children. I am pretty sure they would still do everything they did to get rich in the first place because they still get to enjoy it themselves.

Also, there is NO chance Sanders or Warren will do anything to reduce the size of government. If anything, it will be the opposite.

It's a Catch-22.

The bigger government gets, the more influence and control it has on people's lives. And the more influence and control it has on people's lives, the more that clever and self-interested individuals are going to try to influence the government to act on their behalf. You can't escape it. So just avoid big, powerful government in the first place. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Texans don't believe in big and powerful government, and our success proves your point. Help liberate us from the USA.

Texans don't believe in big and powerful government, and our success proves your point. Help liberate us from the USA. Originally Posted by DSK

Perhaps it is time for JLIdiot, errr DSKIdiot to tell his <ahem> "significant other" that his next defection to Tel Aviv will be final and binding!

Revisionist history again.

Gary Hart was so stupid as to challenge the Press to follow him. They did, and caught him and Ms Rice on that boat named "Monkey Business".

He was toast. In fact, he was the "King of Toast" until ole Edwards came along, running from the National Enquirer reporters in the public bathrooms.

As for the article, What would you bet that Mr. hart is all for keeping the historic cash cows to the Liberal Agenda, (Unions and mega rich Liberals), while ridding our Political Proccess of those evil doers who give to Conservative Groups.?

Perhaps it is time for JLIdiot, errr DSKIdiot to tell his <ahem> &quot;significant other&quot; that his next defection to Tel Aviv will be final and binding! Originally Posted by bigtex

Go bake some Muslim a cake that says "Death to Fags".

It sounds like XNYRKR wants to be a conservative. Don't worry, we'll take anyone including rich, white people.

Capital gains tax rates could definitely follow the same argument. NO, THEY CAN'T.

You can say that it de-incentivizes investment but that would only be half true. You pretty much DON'T work for your capital gains, you have companies doing that for you. Would it matter to you if you paid a little more tax on something you essentially haven't worked for? Originally Posted by shanm

Stop thinking like a progressive (i.e., engaging in wishful thinking) and think rationally.

Investing is NOT like work.

By and large, work is unavoidable for the vast majority of people, even the wealthy. You have to do it, so government can tax you at 40+% on the high end and there is nothing you can do about it.

On the other hand, investing is entirely elective. No one can force you to sell your property to invest in another property and skim off 50% on the transaction;

Let's pretend the capital gains rate is 50% as you said.

If a new company wants to raise $500M from a billionaire to develop a better solar panel, they have to convince the billionaire to sell $1B of his current holdings, pay half of it to the government and then give them the other half.

The new company, if it is lucky will start turning a profit after about 4 or 5 years. And that assumes it doesn't go broke, like Solyndra and a bunch of other alternative energy companies.

So, in order for the billionaire to get back JUST TO EVEN, the company has to double his original $500M investment within about 5 years so that he gets his original $1B back.

But if he had left the $1B where it was and it had continued to grow in value at a modest 5% rate, then his $1B would be more than $1.25 billion.

So, realistically, his $500 million has to grow to $1.25 billion within about 5 years, just to get the billionaire back to even.

But the investment could turn to ZERO if the company doesn't work out (like Solyndra).

So, why would he make that investment? The return would have to be MUCH higher than $1.25 billion to offset the risk of loss.

But the odds of getting back his original $1 billion (or getting to $1.25B) is a lot better if the capital gains rate is only 20% instead of 50%.

That is why high capital gains taxes can kill economic growth. If the new company isn't created in the first place, then there are no jobs or tax revenues of any kind.

But just as new billionaires are made all the time, old billionaires die all the time. And when they do, THEN you can take 60% or 80% or 95% of all of their estate over and above the first X dollars.

In the end, the government gets the tax money anyhow, but it does so without killing off the incentive to invest and take risks.

And when you say big government, you have to define it properly. You say that there are these "too big to fail" companies...well, only by government overreach will we be able to take down these companies. Government just needs to be big in the right places. Originally Posted by shanm

No, you don't have to define it properly, because you CAN'T.

It is the ego of progressives that makes them think that they know what is the right place for government to be big and what is not the right place for it to be big. NO ONE has that much knowledge. Definitely NOT Barack Obama, or Hillary, or Warren or Sanders.

You don't need a big bureaucracy to prevent mergers (or take down the big companies). You simply don't allow them to merge. And you don't allow the big investment banks to expand into new areas they did not previously operate in, like housing loans.

And you don't underwrite housing loans, like with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Just break the big banks and investment houses into a lot of smaller ones that operate in segregated markets so the fire can't spread from one division to another.

And once the banks are no longer too big to fail, DO NOT bail them out. Send a message to all the other banks that they are on their own for their risky investments.

You don't need a big government to stop companies from replacing American workers with foreign workers. You simply SHUT DOWN the H1B visa program because it is horribly corrupt and always will be. No need to pay any lobbyists to tell you what the "right" level of foreign engineers is to provide skills Americans don't have, because that is pure bullshit. American workers HAVE the necessary skills, they just want more pay than their foreign replacements.

You don't need a big government to decide where we need to intervene in foreign countries, you just reduce our military substantially and stay OUT of other countries, especially Muslim ones. It is far cheaper to pick the least evil faction and sell them weapons to eradicate the jihadists.

It sounds like XNYRKR wants to be a conservative. Don't worry, we'll take anyone including rich, white people. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

YOU aren't taking anyone, because you aren't a conservative either.

You are just a reactionary mope.