How about John Kerry or Howard Dean?
Trump Has A Mandate
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
- Status
How about John Kerry or Howard Dean?
Not everyone below the poverty line is eligible for cash assistance. But I do think it makes sense to raise the standard deduction. The problem is, the budget still isn't balanced, and any tax cuts are going to increase the deficit unless offset by something else, so I want to know how the Republicans are planning on paying for these tax cuts. And generally, the answer tends to be an anticipated economic boom that they assume will result from the cuts...but never seems to quite materialize.
So that the poor pay more and the rich pay less. I'm not sure how else to put it.
Are you under the impression that there are too many rich people? Or that the rich are not rich enough?
Because they draw the greatest benefits from our society. They should pay the greatest part of the maintenance of it. No matter how hard we tax the rich, and we've taxed them in the past much more than we do now, we've still never found the point where people don't bother to become rich.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
And yet, they have elections, and the elected governments set the agenda without any input from the Emperor.
I'm still trying to figure out what you meant by this example, and I'm quickly concluding that you are, too.
Yes, for a long time, rule was effectively with the Shogunate, which was a dictatorial feudal system, not a democracy of any sort. And then briefly from the period of the Meiji Revolution until WWII, the emperor's court ruled directly. And it's been a democracy since then, with the Emperor as its symbol, not unlike the British system.
Still not seeing why you think this bolsters your argument. I'm moderately familiar with Japanese history, and the only period when it's been a democracy has been the post-war period, and it seems as stable as anything since the last Shogunate. The period of Imperial rule was marked by a series of wars and colonialism, ultimately culminating in the alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, and their fateful confrontation with the US and its allies.
You want to see what you want to see, and that's that. I'm not continuing a discussion in which you masquerade a slew of information as being something other than your denial processes firing off and spam telling me I'm wrong after each breath.
It's funny how you can spend all that time digging up sources for all you've put up, but not the one damn thing I've spoken on.
Typical internet atheist.
I never heard any of you libs crying foul while the current president increased the burden on Americans with vast regulation (a form of taxation), or by almost doubling the national debt spending from 10.6 trillion when he came into office to 20 trillion when he leaves. It seems you libs were all good with the national giveaway programs & healthcare subsidies that nobody can personally afford nor can the people/government collectively afford, all the while you think that raising the burden on the American people with more taxation or regulation will some how solve the spending problem this government has, and yes, it is a spending problem. Now, liberals are all the sudden worried that Trump can't pay for tax relief? what gives? You libs were all good with Obama spending us into deep dark debt but, now your worried about the debt because Trump is in charge? Liberal logic is not logical at all....
Liberals do not care about:
-the national debt
-illegal immigration
-voting identification
-terrorism
-equal protection
-state power
Every person stomping on the US flag have been liberals.
Those who rioted the streets, burned buildings, and looted businesses were liberals.
The one's killing the police have been liberals.
Those who ruined businesses, livelihoods, have sued schools and institutions, have been liberals.
What is their justification for all of this?
The claim that you conservatives are all evil.
They want to end you, as amply demonstrated in the list above.
And
They are whining that they didn't get their way, and repeating the same narrative.
There is no reason to show them even a grain of compassion, they deservedly got sent back a century, let them marinate in it
-the national debt
-illegal immigration
-voting identification
-terrorism
-equal protection
-state power
Every person stomping on the US flag have been liberals.
Those who rioted the streets, burned buildings, and looted businesses were liberals.
The one's killing the police have been liberals.
Those who ruined businesses, livelihoods, have sued schools and institutions, have been liberals.
What is their justification for all of this?
The claim that you conservatives are all evil.
They want to end you, as amply demonstrated in the list above.
And
They are whining that they didn't get their way, and repeating the same narrative.
There is no reason to show them even a grain of compassion, they deservedly got sent back a century, let them marinate in it
Sorry, I know it should be obvious but you started with shifting the tax burden and then talked about everyone getting cuts but the rich getting larger ones. To me that wasn't necessarily the same thing.
I don't have a goal number of rich people. :idunno: Do you?
Greatest amount in total taxes or greatest amount as a percentage of their income? I think the rich do pay the greatest part now. I can see how that could change under a consumption tax, depending on how it's done. My question may have been from a misunderstanding. I thought you were referring to the total taxes the rich pay now and you were trying to maintain that same number, but that would assume that spending remains the same as well.
Maybe this will be the time it materializes.
:rotfl:
The electoral map showing concentrations of blue and red isn't the same as the regional interests that TH was talking about, unless you are saying California is somehow blue because of something about the area, or there is an issue particular to CA that they are trying to support. If living in cities have a liberalizing effect then perhaps a similar principle could be in play though? :idunno:
Probably not but who knows.
I think TH can speak for himself on this and I understood his assertion but, the regional interests are an ideology in this case, it isn't business vs farmer it is constitutional republic vs socialistic democracy which this nation isn't. The only way that regressive liberals will realize their perceived utopian ideal is by undermining this constitution which impedes that goal... Birds of a feather flock together and the map proves that. You and TH want to pin a particular regional issue on it, when the answer is two opposing world views, or opposing ideologies clashing, one that loves the nation as it was founded & framed, and the other that seek to destroy or modify it to usher in a different set of ideals. Madison spoke of factions in federalist 10 and that is exactly what we see, two opposing factions, one that has the written constitution of the nation which they wish to preserve, and those that seek to rewrite it to fit their worldview. The framers were pretty intuitive people and knew how human nature works. That in a nutshell is the big picture as I see it, Obama came into office saying he wanted to "fundamentally transform" the nation, that is because he hates this nation, you don't want to fundamentally transform something you love, well... the transformation never took place and outside of trashing the constitution, it never will.
Maybe so. And if that were the only thing in his tax policy proposal, I might be supportive. Of that. But the people who are getting the most out of this are the very rich, and that's going to blow a huge hole in the budget.
Complete nonsense. Show me a Republican administration that hasn't increased the national debt. The last president to balance the books?
Bill Clinton
You mean they have a different notion on how to adress it.
Rather, they'll oppose attempts to disenfranchise the poor using a concern about voter fraud that no serious study has ever supported.
Because liberals like bombs going off in their neighborhoods. Right.
:rotfl: They're the reason you know what that means...assuming you do.
Show me a conservative administration that didn't grow the government. I'll wait while it never happens.
No. Those idiots who took over federal lands, or the right wingers who were excited about Texas and other states with fringe groups creating separate states. They were walking over the graves of those who died to preserve the Union, as are the left wing idiots who think California should leave it (and the right wingers who encourage them to).
Mobs do stupid things when they buy into demonization. That's what makes the distortion in political rhetoric dangerous. It's what makes this effort on your part dangerous.
No, murder isn't about politics. It's about anger, and that anger wasn't created by the left, it was encouraged by the worst elements within it, the way people like you encourage the worst in people, whip up hostility and demonize the other.
That's a convoluted mess. Ruined businesses? Being liberal doesn't ruin a business, unless the business uses child labor or unsafe practices. Sued schools and institutions? Listen, genius, there's nothing inherently bad about doing that, absent a frivolous foundation. The reason you have seat belts in automobiles that save thousands any given year is some liberal suing a manufacturer.
You mean the way you're trying to paint them?
lain: No, that's must people like you, hard enough left. It's what extremists do and why they're to be combated in the public square in whatever form they take, no matter what they use as fuel, from religion to patriotism to economics.Oh, please. Most of them don't even believe anyone should own a gun. What are you so afraid of all of the time?
This is part of your problem. You conflate everyone who doesn't sing in your chorus with the worst of what you see in the other.
In the same way Republicans whined about the America they couldn't control when they were out of power. People.
There's less reason to believe you're capable of it, but the reason for a Christian conservative to show compassion to anyone has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with something I don't see you grasping in your approach.
Not to deflate that balloon of yours, but the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the advancements of protection for the little guy, from work environment to living arrangements haven't and aren't going anywhere. Clean air and water aren't going anywhere. National parks aren't going anywhere. The public will still be provided with a largely free education and all of the substantive improvements to the nation that saw their genesis in the party you demonize will continue as they have.
Conservatives may have a guy who can move the economy forward. I hope they do. I hope the country prospers and that in that prosperity we grow more compassionate and wise. Because this is a family squabble, not a war between enemies. If you don't get that you're lost. If enough people lose sight of that we might as well turn the lights out and wonder where the next great human experiment will happen.
He didn't have to consider a budget to go fight a war, so :idunno:
Replacing the border with a welcome mat and giving them access to citizen amenities isn't addressing anything. It's completely abandoning it altogether, you imbecile.
The poor and disenfranchised can find a DMV and pay $10 for an ID.
That's the only way they are going to get a job, but I suppose liberals aren't really concerned about that!
They set their own bombs off :chuckle:
The Muslims tend to aim for white, conservative places.
A white Christian male has become game for pretty much anyone. That's why the Alt Right is rising at an alarming rate, and your narrative, which used to work, no longer is.
So have fun with that.
There's people against the Union, and there's people simply against the premise of America altogether. Liberals just don't like America- when it boils down to it they don't want borders because they don't want the country within it's confines, plain and simple.
You all talking about demonization is laughable. For the past decade, you have all crusaded on half the country and demonized them- it's what cost you the election, whether you want to accept that or not. You can't shape public opinion by telling them they are bigoted, racist, privileged pieces of dirt :freak:
If everyone gets a tax cut, and you just finance that with debt, then everyone is responsible to pay the debt at the new tax rates. And since the rich are paying less, it amounts to the poor taking on more of the tax burden. Of course, what's really going to happen is that we'll just run huge deficits like we do under every Republican administration.
I have a rough ideal distribution. There should always be a ramp into the higher classes rather than a steep cliff to climb. As it is in the current economy, if you're born poor, you tend to stay poor, if you're born into the middle class, there's a good chance you fall into poverty eventually, and if you're rich, you may never have to work a day in your life, like our current President-elect.
Both.
I'm not really systematically devoted to a particular set of rates. I'd set them based on the idea that most people should end up somewhere in the middle class. If I find that too many people are struggling to stay in the middle class, I would look to the rich to fund the solution with the rich, either by their own initiative (hiring more people for better jobs), or by taxing them. If I find a generalized problem hiring good employees, I would ask if the benefits offered to the poor aren't too generous.
They do. But they've also been getting tax cuts even as income inequality rises, the middle class shrinks, education becomes more and more expensive, and expectations of workers expand.
If you have $1 to spend every day, you will probably spend all of it, and go to bed hungry. If you have $10 to spend, you'll still probably spent all of it, but you might not if you're careful. If you have $100,000 to spend, you probably will only spend a small portion of it. Sure, you might do more expensive things. But chances are, you will spend a bit, and keep the rest. The consumption tax would only tax the portion of what you spend, so you'd end up paying a whole lot less in taxes than you would if you were taxed on your whole income. In addition, it has a destimulative impact on the economy because it discourages economic activity.
You think getting us into a war we didn't have to fight at a cost we really couldn't afford while telling the American people it would finance itself is a plus on the ledger instead of a lame side step and excuse?
lain:It's also not their response to the problem.
Now say something pithy.
I said p-i-t-h-y. A common phonetic misunderstanding.
A poll tax by any other name. Of course it's more complicated than a simple amount of money. Summed, it's a way of lessening the likelihood of participation by a segment of the population that doesn't tend to vote Republican. Given, again, no serious study has supported the idea that substantive election fraud is taking place, that's all it really is.
Here goes the irrational race card again, coupled with a willfully mistaken, phobic-eyed view of Islam. That can only mean one thing: he's about to double down.
Bam. Nothing says "I've got a rational handle on how things are" quite like a member of the most empowered and privileged set in America playing the victim card.
On the plus side, that's TOL's daily supply of chutzpah right there.
The only thing rising about the alt right is its mistaken sense of empowerment.
No. There really isn't, but as with so many things it's like you to say so.
I agree that was both plain and particularly simple, but not remotely true.
Unlike you I only have the once voice in my noggin and I speak for myself, not the zealots on the left or right of me or even those similar to me in the middle. And there's nothing funny about what you're attempting. The only humor in it is in the way you try to go about it.
No, I never have. Most people haven't. People who do that, like you and the hard right or left, do have a way of polarizing others and, more problematically, by sounding off with regularity on this funhouse world-view, move the margins toward accepting the slightly less irrational as a compromise.
Didn't have a candidate in the election, but the EC cost the Dems the election and I've spoken at length to that particular.
Never tried to...and you can't shape public opinion by telling over half the electorate they're privileged, American hating criminals. And you've actually, literally done just that.
- Status