I can't stand him. The 1% in some cases pay less than the middle class.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
- Status
Just my prediction. We can track it in 6 months and then at the end of the year.
I liked Rubio but at same time I wanted someone that's not involved in politics who's rich and cannot be bought like the others and that's Trump. Maybe Rubio will run with Trump but still too early.
you are paying more because the fat cats are not paying enough. This is just one way they pass the burden down to people who are just trying get by.
All the bull about trickle down economics.....Its ordinary working people that need a tax break so we have more to spend and thus boost the economy. And that in turn would mean more people will have jobs....no more welfare.
All Bernie is saying...a fair shake for everyone.
This line of thinking does my head in. Sure, you like your conservatives, fair enough, but you do realize it's the people like Trump who are doing the buying right? By electing someone like that, you just effectively cut out the middle men. The policies won't change one jot.
...possible. I think so too.
You support Trump?
I have to say, he is certainly better than Chris Christie.
If you are voting GOP then I say go for Trump, he is actually probably the best of the bunch, apart from Kasich.
But if one must vote GOP (if you are racist, ignorant, sexist or rich it kinda makes sense), maybe Trump is the best of what they have....look at their top 10 candidates, it is just embarrassing for them. Cruz should win it and then we get to watch the world burn.
I agree. Though it is also possible Kasich may be angling for the VP spot. Wont make any difference. Think Hillary or Bernie will beat the GOP nominees.
None of the GOP candidates have enough national appeal to win IMO.
In fact, the GOP probably wouldnt win another national election in a very long time if they keep this shit up.
The irony is the GOP has been telling its constituents for years not to trust the Government and Trump is their chickens coming home to roost.
They made their bed now they are all freaking out over Trump or Cruz winning the nomination.
yeah. they are getting so far right, they are off the charts.
I couldn't care less which candidate a voter go for, it's their right, but the rationale behind supporting a candidate like Trump is laughable. He represents the capitalist class that have hijacked the political process and now folks are putting their trust in him to make it right? Trump is a demagogue playing on people' fears and anxiety and running a nationalistic campaign dangerously close to that of the 20th century fascists.
Its more of a negative vote. Voters are saying they are fed up with same ol stuff and their lot has not improved.
I know what it is, I've just never understood the obsession. Sorry, I was being somewhat rhetorical. Yours is a good answer though
Well, then they should be feeling the Bern. Their lot in all likelihood still won't improve, but Bernie's policies actually work to their interests, as opposed to building a YUGE wall and banning Muslims.
The reason both Sanders and Trump are attracting voters, is they are not 'establishment' candidates. The GOP especially are jaded with their usual candidates. Just look at Jeb Bush numbers....
Hillary for many Dems is a throwback to the happy Clinton days and she is very close to Obama's policies. She will most likely be the Democratic nominee. But she has high negatives.
Until emailgate, the Republicans only had Bengazhi to throw at her. I still think she can be hurt by her email issue. The FBI needs to finish their findings soon.
The reason both Sanders and Trump are attracting voters, is they are not 'establishment' candidates. The GOP especially are jaded with their usual candidates. Just look at Jeb Bush numbers....
Hillary for many Dems is a throwback to the happy Clinton days and she is very close to Obama's policies. She will most likely be the Democratic nominee. But she has high negatives.
So long as Bernie and his ardent supporters get out the message that one election can't change a lot, and they start getting involved in lower tier elections, I think this might be the greatest thing to happen to the US for a long while. And the world, by extension.
[/naive]
Hope this thread is largely wrong
Bush is just a very weak campaigner. I've watched him doing townhall and it's the same with his debate performance. Stuttering, wonkish and unconvincing. And yet, the biggest reason for his demise is the number of establishment candidates running. I think it's still very likely that after South Carolina, some out of Jeb, Christie, Kasich will drop out and the establishment will coalesce around Rubio to get him the required delegates count. It's also worth noting that delegates are awarded proportionally in the first few primaries, so a Trump sweep of Iowa, NH and SC won't necessarily make him inevitable.
But Trump is very far ahead. And other than Kaisch, I don't see Jeb and Christie dropping just yet.
So long as Bernie and his ardent supporters get out the message that one election can't change a lot, and they start getting involved in lower tier elections, I think this might be the greatest thing to happen to the US for a long while. And the world, by extension.
[/naive]
Hope this thread is largely wrong
Sanders supporters are not expecting miracles. They know what they are against. They also know he is a fighter.
All of them are basically zeroing in New Hampshire. Without a decent placing and hence media attention/momentum, fundraising will become a big issue. Bush may persist until the convention out of pride but all three logically will drop out sooner or later if they can't bump Rubio out of the establishment lane.
Before all this started, I was expecting a boring Hillary v Bush race. Its good for voters that we have candidates who are not offering the same ol formulas. Voters are paying attention. Its important more people vote.
We need to hold these candidates feet to the fire.
We need to hold these candidates feet to the fire.
I'm half afraid to believe and half convinced that the movement surrounding this: waking up dormant voters who've given up, engaging apathetic youth voters, turning around Republicans of all ages (either that or there are a lot of ridicilously sincere sounding trolls out there), points to it being very likely. It all seems to me to be a carbon copy of the 08 primary for Hillary, and with a man who really has distanced himself from big money interests, and who's been banging on the same drum for so many decades. If he really can get people more deeply involved, and get them to hold their elected officials accountable (which is work that'll have to start before he's even elected with so many seats up for grabs this year), then there may be real democratic change.
Or we could wind up seeing a parody of a presidency, if it gets stuck inbetween the notion of the Oval office and actual public engagement with those who by and large set up the roles to their lives.
See? I'm all bipolar and shit.
The Republicans think they can shout down Sanders by just calling him a Socialist. The General Election will be about policies as it always is. This is where Sanders will win.
Eh?
One question, let's say Sanders get everything going his way, win the election and the Senate, what do you think he can accomplish before the mid term? The House is lost and generally the opposition will win back Senate seats in the mid term. If Obama with complete control of Congress during his first 2 years couldn't get anything more than a watered down version of Romneycare to pass, how can Sanders manage to pass his major tax reforms and single healthcare?
A big issue with the Dem voters is that they don't turn out for down ballot elections. To get his agenda rolling, Sanders will have to get them committed in the process for 4-8 years running, which is a feat I think hasn't been repeated since FDR.
DO THE RICH PAY FOR EVERYTHING?
The U.S. tax code is very complicated, but it follows one general rule (Buffett, notwithstanding): Richer people pay more. In fact, the top 1% pays more federal taxes than the bottom 60% combined. Is that outrageous? You might think so. But consider also that the top 1% also makes more than the bottom 40% combined. That's the thing about being rich in America: You make lots and lots of money and you get taxed at a progressive rate on it.
Here's another way to look at tax burden by quintile. The top 20% makes a little more than half the money and pays about two-thirds of the federal taxes. That's progressive taxation at work. Whether it's too progressive or not progressive enough is a debate for another post. [Tax Policy Center]
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-we-pay-taxes-11-charts/255954/
Someone who makes $200k a year is paying almost a median household income just in federal taxes ($50k). What more do you want them to pay? How do you judge that they're not paying "their fair share"?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/
The Rich need to pay progressively higher rates of taxes. Its simple common sense. To simply say the Rich pay more taxes is missing the point compleletly.
Otherwise you are transfereing the burden downwards to those that cannot afford to pay.
The Rich need to pay progressively higher rates of taxes. Its simple common sense. To simply say the Rich pay more taxes is missing the point compleletly.
Otherwise you are transfereing the burden downwards to those that cannot afford to pay.
Do you think Hillary will get more done in the same circumstances? Why? She starts 'closer' to the Tea Party. She will have less to bargain with. For example, she is happy enough with the current Health Care. How can she improve it? Simply if you start with 100, you may get 75 or 50. She starts with what 10? what is she going to get. 5? You know what I'm getting at? I'm saying we should not be looking back at a disinformed minority. But instead elect people who want to act on behalf of most American, a vast majority of Americans. Remember, many Repulicans cannot stand these Tea Party crazies either. They want to get on with business. These people will side with the winning party and get the business done. Why did the Omnibus bill pass. Why is Tea Party Cruz so hated?
What is it about then? Did you follow the last two elections?
Its already progressive, how much more progressive do you want it? When will it be "the fair share"? The tax bill for making more than $200k is already in the 30s/40s percentage wise when you add in what most states also charge. Where do you want it to go? 45%? 50%? 60%?
Its accepted sense, not common sense. I wouldn't care if it were common sense or not, I care if it makes economic sense. Mr Buffet's lower rate is because lower taxes on capital gains and not taxing non-distributed investment income is a subsidy to reinvestment. Don't like that? Just raise the capital gains rate to equal the personal income rate, no need to go on a crusade to increase income taxes further.
I don't even like it being progressive (not that I have any hope of that changing), and here's why: if I leave my job today and go be a snowboard instructor I'll make maybe 1/10th of what I do today. As a result my tax bill won't just be 1/10 of what it is, it'll drop to 1/15 or 1/20 of what it is today. And what difference stands between one situation and the other? Just my decisions... the government gets to tax me a smaller or larger rate based upon what I decide.
You really think there's a lot of policy dissection in a GE campaign? Misinformation and attack ads are the main things I remember from last time round, 2008 had little in the way of policy and a lot in the way of candidate worship, and I doubt you'll think 2000 and 2004 were policy-based victories. To say that Sanders would be able to win based on that is hard to back up. Particularly when we've now got the unexpected presence of Bloomberg thinking he could win through the middle in a Sanders vs. Trump/Cruz battle.
The fact is higher progressive rates of taxes (and I'm not going to get into how much of a rate here), thereby transfering the tax burden away from lower income earners will improve the economy for all...yes all those Super Rich too. The key to economic progress is that lower income earners have more money to spend. That is how the economy improves. Closing of loopholes for tax havens and paying higher taxes on capital gains will also help.
People do follow the debates. The attack ads may be an influence on independents and undecideds. Most have even now made up their minds who/which party to vote for. I see the reason people are veering away from establishment candidates, is because people Are paying attention. They are asking 'so what is it in for me' as they should. Instead of simply saying the other guy is worse or whatever. I am encouraged.
You're going to have to excuse me for having attended a neoclassical econ school, having drank the kool-aid, and therefore being quite skeptical about post-keynesian economics. Besides, I've seen that movie played too often, most recently in my native Brazil: it works until it doesn't, until companies no longer invest in increasing supply (maybe because capital gains taxes are so high), or any other exogenous shock happens to the economy. Then the process just becomes inflationary.
Obviously we have basic disagreements on such things. As in everything there needs to be moderation. I am simply comparing other socialist countries where such things work as in Germany and Scandinavia. We are a much bigger and stronger economy than them. It will work. All it takes is Will.
Last edited:
DO THE RICH PAY FOR EVERYTHING?
The U.S. tax code is very complicated, but it follows one general rule (Buffett, notwithstanding): Richer people pay more. In fact, the top 1% pays more federal taxes than the bottom 60% combined. Is that outrageous? You might think so. But consider also that the top 1% also makes more than the bottom 40% combined. That's the thing about being rich in America: You make lots and lots of money and you get taxed at a progressive rate on it.
Here's another way to look at tax burden by quintile. The top 20% makes a little more than half the money and pays about two-thirds of the federal taxes. That's progressive taxation at work. Whether it's too progressive or not progressive enough is a debate for another post. [Tax Policy Center]
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-we-pay-taxes-11-charts/255954/
Someone who makes $200k a year is paying almost a median household income just in federal taxes ($50k). What more do you want them to pay? How do you judge that they're not paying "their fair share"?
And yet there's this data too:
I mean, it's progressive, but the slope is tending to zero.
- Status