Barack Obama was viewed as a major contender for the Democratic Party nomination from the beginning of the primaries. He and Hillary were the only two candidates that had raised over $20MM in the first 3 months of 2007. So, 19 months before the election, the two serious democratic candidates had already taken the lead. In January 2008, Obama won 3 of the 4 first primaries, and tied with Hillary in the 4th.
Rand Paul is viewed as following in his father's footsteps, who was never taken seriously by the national party. In his best performance in 2012, Ron Paul only won the primary in the US Virgin Islands.
> In his best performance in 2012, Ron Paul only won the primary in the US Virgin Islands.
In the popular vote, true, but in number of delegates, once the counts were tallied, Ron Paul won Iowa, Maine, Minnesota and Louisiana.
Ron Paul also had a solid financial campaign in 2012, not the largest fund, but likely the best managed. his performance was in large part diminished by media bashing on the eve of any primary elections in which polls were in his favor. For example, see CNN's Gloria Borger interview cut, which was quite outrageous.
I distinctly recall a whole slew of pundits ready to hold a coronation for Hillary Clinton in 2007 prior to a single primary vote being cast.
The Republican field is completely different, of course, but that's why Rand Paul could win. The "front runner" has less than 17% of the vote and there are less than ten percentage points between #1 and #7. Those are exactly the conditions under which a candidate who can differentiate himself can succeed by capturing the entirety of his own base while the base of the other camp is split between several different candidates.
These 20 % get a lot in return for the taxes they pay. In general taxes are good because the are dues we pay to enjoy the numerous vital benefits that government provides for our society.
You're right. Its weird how little people think that the infrastructure provided by government for civil society benefits them. Contract enforcement and property protection come to mind. The 20% in question benefit greatly from the taxes they pay.
Contract enforcement and property protection? That accounts for what? Less than 1% of total government spending? Unless of course you consider the military "property protection".
So you are arguing that someone in the 39.6% tax bracket gets 164% more "in return for the taxes they pay" than someone in the 15% tax bracket? (Or infinitely more than someone who pays no income tax at all?)
Sure. The people getting taxed at 39.6% of income over net income over $430k are almost certainly in some sort of business, whose profitability almost certainly depends on the prosperity of the 99.5% of Americans making less money.
That argument is absurd. It's like saying that an employee has some kind of moral obligation to their employer because without the employer, they wouldn't have a job. The reality is that in a market economy, people voluntarily exchange goods, services, labor, whatever, when the exchange is mutually beneficial. Nobody owes anyone anything in the sense you are talking about.
I'm not trying to be offensive, but that simplifies the human condition to an almost cartoon-ish degree. People aren't really the simple rational economic actors that are useful in theory. I know that sounds trite, but it is true.
Now I'm not a supporter of calling taxes a good thing - they are violent theft after all - but for better or worse those 39.6%ers would have had 164% less of anything without the taxes in the first place.
No society on the planet has organized without violent taxation, and there is no way those less fortunate could foot more of the bill. You can of course argue about reducing that bill - I am all for it - but arguing that the affluent are not benefiting their share from taxes is insane - they are only wealthy because those taxes exist.
Depends how you look at it. If it's a "survival of the fittest" state of nature, which is what humans emerged from, remember that those with a lot have a lot to lose, those with nothing have nothing to lose. We'd either fight it out, or come to an understanding about how to share limited resources while cooperating for the betterment of all.
This is the social contract, google and wikipedia are your friends ;)
I wonder if Yahoo will get back on track. Marissa is doing an extraordinary good job. I would say that if all measures Marissa is doing don`t help Yahoo, nothing can help Yahoo.
It's a tech company with a market cap of $42bn and see was the fourth CEO to take the wheel in 2012. Of course, what happens at Yahoo! is news and that the conclusion that it went downhill during all the board shuffles makes sense. But I'm not sure this proves she is doing great:
Certainly seems to be in a better state than before. That can be credited to Marissa Mayer. A look at the stock price[1] seems to confirm she indeed does a good job.
However, one might argue that's just mean reversion at work: they hit a bad streak followed by a good one. The fact that this shuffle remembered me of the Henrique de Castro mess makes me conclude see is not doing an 'extraordinary good job', just good.
Google services are nice, no questions. But more and more interesting alternatives are showing up done by different companies. And maybe Google's competitors are more hungry to provide better support.
True. There is big discussion on how to pay benefits in the future and how to stay competitive in global markets. To me the only way to solve this two problems is to attract smart people from foreign countries.
