and no you do not fund that sort of redistribution sufficently with a consumption tax. the negative effects will be too large and the tax base too narrow.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2388
Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
and no you do not fund that sort of redistribution sufficently with a consumption tax. the negative effects will be too large and the tax base too narrow. | ||
Mohdoo
United States15689 Posts
| ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21685 Posts
On October 13 2015 03:13 cLutZ wrote: It is amazing the lengths people want governments to go to so they can maximize tax revenue. Why is there never soul searching about why they are being out completed for profits. Why do you think that pretending like people are not human would lead to a better answer? Humans in general are greedy power hungry beings, to pretend otherwise is a recipe for failure. Was my option realistic? Hell no but a fiscal unions impact on tax evasion will be limited so long as there is a viable tax haven somewhere in the world. Because people are greedy and if they have the option they will use it. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX), a chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said he intended to run for speaker of the House in an interview with the Texas Tribune Monday. He said he would launch his campaign for the gavel as long as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) -- who has been asked to run by many Republicans -- continues to stay out of the race. “I don’t want to share private conversations, but he was still a 'no' as of yesterday when I spoke to him,” Flores said. Since Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) bowed out from the speaker's race last week -- facing pressure from the hard right House Freedom Caucus -- the lower chamber has been in chaos as to how to move forward in nominating a new leader to replace House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who announced his resignation last month after the Freedom Caucus threatened a coup. In his interview with the Tribune, Flores suggested that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), another candidate for speaker, was already too connected to the current leadership hierarchy for the position, as House Republicans need someone who “hasn’t been in leadership" before, Flores said. Flores also nodded to some of the rule changes members the Freedom Caucus have been asking for to give rank-and-file member more influence in the House's decision-making process. Source | ||
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 13 2015 06:46 Mohdoo wrote: What do people think the objectives are for Clinton and Sanders tomorrow? I think Sanders will be trying to show that his ideas are realistic and that Clinton will be trying to convince people that she is indeed a Democrat. She just needs to be progressive and come across as genuine (the hard part lol). The objective of every non-Clinton candidate is probably to answer as many questions as possible and try to maximize their airtime. This is the best advertising they're going to get and it's free. Sanders in particular needs to do everything in his power to generate news clips showing he cares about minorities. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 13 2015 06:48 Gorsameth wrote: Why do you think that pretending like people are not human would lead to a better answer? Humans in general are greedy power hungry beings, to pretend otherwise is a recipe for failure. Was my option realistic? Hell no but a fiscal unions impact on tax evasion will be limited so long as there is a viable tax haven somewhere in the world. Because people are greedy and if they have the option they will use it. there are effective political levers a big sovereign state like the U.S. or EU could pull to shut down the worst schemes. cayman islands is only around because the U.K. likes it that way. the u.s. for example allows transfer pricing schemes for patent reliant companies to hide their income because it's an area of policy with very few exposure and political pressure, but a lot of arcane regulations and lobbying. it's also a bit of a strategic choice as these are industries the u.s. likes. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
On October 13 2015 06:46 Mohdoo wrote: What do people think the objectives are for Clinton and Sanders tomorrow? I think Sanders will be trying to show that his ideas are realistic and that Clinton will be trying to convince people that she is indeed a Democrat. She just needs to be progressive and come across as genuine (the hard part lol). Well #1 objective for Sanders is for people to know who he is and what he stands for. Nationally 38% of Democrats still say they don't know enough about him to rate him favorable or unfavorable. (Considering how coverage has been divided this is no surprise). For Hillary I agree, her goal is to project the image of a progressive Democrat without actually being one. I just can't take seriously anymore someone who claims they want to reverse citizens united but has a superPAC, claims they want to get rid of the PIC yet takes heaps of money from them, claims they want to get wall street in check but is again taking cash from them and suggesting terrible legislation, and the list goes on. It would take one hell of an explanation for me to think she is genuinely anything but a centrist "now with new progressive rhetoric!". | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 13 2015 09:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: If Clinton attacks Sanders during the debate, she's finished. I wouldn't go as far as saying finished because she's still Clinton and we're 13 months from the election, but it certainly wouldn't do her any favors. All Sanders has to do is stay out of any mud slinging. Say I'm not here for bullshit, I'm here to talk about issues period. Then proceed to dumpster everyone else. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
darthfoley
United States8003 Posts
On October 13 2015 06:46 Mohdoo wrote: What do people think the objectives are for Clinton and Sanders tomorrow? I think Sanders will be trying to show that his ideas are realistic and that Clinton will be trying to convince people that she is indeed a Democrat. She just needs to be progressive and come across as genuine (the hard part lol). This is primarily how I believe the debate will go (note, I'm a big Bernie supporter so that change my expectations): 1. Clinton will try to come across as a genuine progressive, trying to focus on certain issues that aren't associated with her flip flopping: e.g women's health, college affordability. I severely doubt she will want to talk at length about TPP, marriage equality, or the war in Iraq. I feel she will attempt to portray herself as a fighter, without fighting in the debate: she wants to play it safe. 2. Bernie Sanders will do what he's been doing: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. He will highlight his consistency on a wide range of issues, while focusing on issues that pertain to middle class America/minorities. Criminal justice, free tuition, income inequality. He will want to stay away from gun control. If I were him, I would defend his moderate gun control positions as a potential source of bipartisan success if elected, because that is one of his biggest purported weaknesses (that he won't be able to get anything done). Above all, Bernie will stay issue focused and not engage in negativity... He won't need to. 3. Martin O'Malley's candidacy is in desperation mode right now. His poll numbers are single digits and stagnant, and his funds must trickling in because he has yet to publicize his 3rd quarter haul. Similar to how Rand Paul came in swinging to the GOP debate, O'Malley will too. He will want to show that he combines both Bernie's progressiveness, with Clinton's "fighter" mentality, and has an executive track record to fall back on. I expect him to take shots at Clinton's consistency and her tarnished public image. Unfortunately for him, i think this strategy is his only recourse, but I don't think it will work. While he will raise valid concerns about Clinton's flip flopping and electability, he will appear divisive-- which ultimately benefits Bernie Sanders, who will keep his hands relatively clean. In short, he will do Bernie's dirty work. 4,5. Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee need to do anything to appear relevant. I actually think of the bottom 3, Webb may have the best chance at a good debate result. He's more of a moderate, with veteran experience, so he may have some success with Hillary Clinton's potential supporters. I think O'Malley will stay in Sander's shadow, with a 3-4% glass ceiling. Thoughts? | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
LimpingGoat
898 Posts
| ||
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On October 13 2015 11:06 LimpingGoat wrote: Wouldn't it be sick if young people actually started to vote. Depends on how young. I honestly think it would be better if the 18-early 20's people did not actually have a say in voting, as many are quite delusional at that point and simply go with what their friends go with, who in turn go with what their other friends go with, or just the opposite of their parents, to be rebellious. However people in their mid-late 20's and on do need to vote more. | ||
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
| ||
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
I'd also like to see the rest of the candidates really go after Hillary hard. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The Flint City Council has approved spending $2 million toward temporarily reconnecting with Detroit's water system amid a health emergency. The Flint Journal reports the council on Monday unanimously approved contributing to the $12 million tab. Gov. Rick Snyder is asking lawmakers for half of that, while a foundation has committed $4 million. The council's action paves the way for Flint's Receivership Transition Advisory Board to consider the same move Wednesday. Flint stopped using Detroit water last year to cut costs, opting for the Flint River. Almost immediately after the switch to Flint River water last April, residents began posting photos online of tea-colored and sometimes pee-colored tap water. Shortly afterward, the water’s high levels of bacteria, which are linked to conditions such as nausea and diarrhea, forced the city to announce a series of boil-water advisories. The city tried to eliminate the bacteria by treating the water with more chlorine, which in turn created the THM problem. In the fall the local General Motors plant stopped using the river water out of fear that the chemicals would corrode car engines. Meanwhile, residents continued to receive astronomical monthly water and sewer bills — Flint’s rates are about eight times the national average — for water that many deemed undrinkable. Source | ||
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/12/politics/ben-carson-end-of-days/index.html When Carson was asked by journalist Sharyl Attkisson if he believed the "end of days" was near, he said, "You could guess that we are getting closer to that." "You do have people who have a belief system that sees this apocalyptic phenomena occurring and that they are a part of it, who would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons if they gained possession of them," Carson told Attkisson, a former CBS News reporter, on her show, "Full Measure" that aired Sunday. | ||
LimpingGoat
898 Posts
On October 13 2015 11:20 hunts wrote: Depends on how young. I honestly think it would be better if the 18-early 20's people did not actually have a say in voting, as many are quite delusional at that point and simply go with what their friends go with, who in turn go with what their other friends go with, or just the opposite of their parents, to be rebellious. However people in their mid-late 20's and on do need to vote more. I mean I'm in that demographic and consider myself fairly well informed, but while you're probably right, the demo that votes the most are honestly just as delusional and misinformed as anyone possibly can be. | ||
LuckyFool
United States9015 Posts
On October 13 2015 12:20 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: Ben Carson being Ben Carson. Okay its not as bad as I originally thought (stupid thast actual news sites putting clickbait titles) but its still kinda out there. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/12/politics/ben-carson-end-of-days/index.html Why are people even asking him if he thinks the end of days are near. I swear these questions are coming out just to induce more clickbait headlines. I'm glad he said he's not backing down or changing anything. | ||
| ||