EPTI don't think it's ideal that taxes are so much higher on the rich than on the middle class but that's a reflection of an underlying problem, the money has to come from somewhere and the rich aren't just richer, they're hugely disproportionately richer. Adjusting the taxes without reflecting that American society today is profoundly uneven is the move of an idiot or someone committed to the creation of an American aristocracy.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2769
| 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. | ||
KwarK
United States43971 Posts
I don't think it's ideal that taxes are so much higher on the rich than on the middle class but that's a reflection of an underlying problem, the money has to come from somewhere and the rich aren't just richer, they're hugely disproportionately richer. Adjusting the taxes without reflecting that American society today is profoundly uneven is the move of an idiot or someone committed to the creation of an American aristocracy. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43971 Posts
On January 21 2016 03:43 cLutZ wrote: How is it possible to reduce the tax burden of the poorest 25% of Americans? Most of them already either are not paying federal income tax or are receiving refundable tax credits through the EITC. Which is the heart of his proposal. He's going to cut taxes for everyone. This will involve giving a new 0% rate to people who already didn't owe taxes or actually received credits and use that tax cut on the poor to take away the taxes that pay for their subsidized daycare, social services and so forth. | ||
|
snow2.0
Germany2073 Posts
On January 21 2016 03:41 xDaunt wrote: I honestly don't see why this is so hard to see. Trump has purposefully said next to nothing regarding most of his policies. He's riding his immigration position and anti-establishment "fuck you" rhetoric to the republican nomination because that's all he has to do. He's virtually a blank slate position-wise. However, even a cursory look into his past reveals that he dude is about as centrist as you can get overall. Fuck, if nothing else, I'd like to think that I'd have proven my conservative bonafides around here over the years. Take it from an expert on the subject: Trump is not a conservative. Theoretical comparison to current tax rates. His plan is absolute simplification, cutting any loopholes that are currently used, thus increasing what they actually pay while decreasing the nominal rate. Whatever becomes of "closing loopholes", it definitely has potential to get rid of a whole lot of ridiculous and likely overpaid bureaucracy. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 21 2016 03:52 snow2.0 wrote: Theoretical comparison to current tax rates. His plan is absolute simplification, cutting any loopholes that are currently used, thus increasing what they actually pay while decreasing the nominal rate. Whatever becomes of "closing loopholes", it definitely has potential to get rid of a whole lot of ridiculous and likely overpaid bureaucracy. Closing loopholes is about closing exceptions in the tax code. I don't know how it would lessen bureaucracy. They are not to lay off IRS workers because some loop holes are closed. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 21 2016 02:16 KwarK wrote: Economy contracting a lot these last few weeks which looks bad for Obama. He had 7 years of uninterrupted economic growth with the SP500 tripling from the Bush low (a colossal increase for which he was largely not responsible for). It's dropped 300 points now, a little over 14%, and is showing no signs of stopping. While it's still way, way higher than it was when he took office people won't remember the good years, they'll remember (and vote) based on recent history. People are overacting a bit on oil, but I'm not seeing anything good in the economy either. Globally, Europe is sluggish, China is fighting a collapse, and "oil producers" are bleeding out. US consumer spending has been slowing as well. About the only bright patch was hiring/wages/unemployment signalling that consumer spending might come back later this year, but we've been expecting that since late 2014 with no solid numbers validating the expectations. Then there was the Fed liftoff, and yet bond yields slumped. It's going to be a "rough" year for the broader economy most likely, but I don't think it's going to turn drastically downward. Of all the things I mentioned, there isn't really a risk of serious contagion in other markets, no "cascading dominoes" as far as I can tell, just general weakness. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On January 21 2016 03:30 xDaunt wrote: What exactly do you think his "far right" positions are? He only has one: immigration. Yes and no. I agree that he policy wise is fairly "left" relative to most other republican candidates on issues like taxation and healthcare. At least going by his interviews early in the primary season. The reason he is unelectable is not because he is extremely rightwing on policy, it's that pretty much the entire part of the country not voting in republican primaries absolutely hate his guts. I know many in this thread have ridiculed the idea that calling out Trump for his various racist (i assume some mexican immigrants arent rapists) and sexist (she was a bitch to me because she is was pmsing) comments would hurt him in any way, and then cited his poll numbers as evidence they are right. He is polling well among a group of people (republican primary voters) who don't give a shit about such things, among the rest of his country his unfavourability ratings are off the charts. And it's not like I am conjecturing this, the 538 article posted on the previous page supports the narrative that most of the people who would vote in the general absolutely, thoroughly, detests him. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43971 Posts
| ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On January 21 2016 03:41 xDaunt wrote: I honestly don't see why this is so hard to see. Trump has purposefully said next to nothing regarding most of his policies. He's riding his immigration position and anti-establishment "fuck you" rhetoric to the republican nomination because that's all he has to do. He's virtually a blank slate position-wise. However, even a cursory look into his past reveals that he dude is about as centrist as you can get overall. Fuck, if nothing else, I'd like to think that I'd have proven my conservative bonafides around here over the years. Take it from an expert on the subject: Trump is not a conservative. I have been trying to say this also (possibly under "Dota_Lust"). Trump has no "limited government" positions beyond tax cuts. He sells the idea of the power of the state, specifically a state wielding his awesome power, to fix the problems of the world. Trump consistently proposes big government answers to any problem presented in the news. He is more of a populist/nationalist than any kind of small government conservative. //compare Trump to the Koch brother positions and the contrast is clear | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/as-supreme-court-clerk-ted-cruz-made-death-penalty-his-cause.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news Other clerks, however, had a less admiring view of his interest. In interviews with nearly two dozen of Mr. Cruz’s former colleagues on the court, many of the clerks working in the chambers of liberal justices, but also several from conservative chambers, depicted Mr. Cruz as “obsessed” with capital punishment. Some thought his recounting of the crimes — “dime store novel” was how one described his style — seemed more appropriate for a prosecutor persuading a jury than for a law clerk addressing the country’s nine foremost judges. Melissa Hart, who clerked for one of the liberal justices, John Paul Stevens, said Mr. Cruz’s memos on death penalty appeals basically boiled down to “frivolous, meritless, deny,” and added that his writing approach “made a lot of people really angry.” and Clerks for liberal justices expressed the strongest distaste for Mr. Cruz’s death penalty memos, and sometimes made their antipathy known. Several clerks for conservative justices said that while they usually agreed with his conclusions, his writing needlessly provoked the death penalty opponents working at the court. Those clerks declined to be quoted criticizing Mr. Cruz, however, saying they did not want to anger someone who could become the next president. I am always impressed at Cruz's ability to make everyone ever crosses his path hate him. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On January 21 2016 04:04 aksfjh wrote: People are overacting a bit on oil, but I'm not seeing anything good in the economy either. Globally, Europe is sluggish, China is fighting a collapse, and "oil producers" are bleeding out. US consumer spending has been slowing as well. About the only bright patch was hiring/wages/unemployment signalling that consumer spending might come back later this year, but we've been expecting that since late 2014 with no solid numbers validating the expectations. Then there was the Fed liftoff, and yet bond yields slumped. It's going to be a "rough" year for the broader economy most likely, but I don't think it's going to turn drastically downward. Of all the things I mentioned, there isn't really a risk of serious contagion in other markets, no "cascading dominoes" as far as I can tell, just general weakness. I really wonder about the global deflationary environment. China's double digit growth really helped out the BRICs, but Brazil, Russia, and India are either in shambles or stagnating. The resource economies are in terrible shape due to the commodity crash. How long can USA remain an island of growth in a world of deflation? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
President Barack Obama vetoed on Tuesday legislation that would have nullified a federal rule designed to protect smaller streams, tributaries and wetlands from pollution. In his veto message, Obama defended the rule. He said pollution from upstream sources ends up in the rivers, lakes and coastal waters near where most Americans live. He also said the rule would clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act and protect those resources. "The rule, which is a product of extensive public involvement and years of work, is critical to our efforts to protect the nation's waters and keep them clean," Obama said. “It’s pretty simple — all water is connected. Even kids understand that,” Clean Water Action, an environmental advocacy group, said on its website. “The health of our rivers, lakes and bays depend on the streams and wetlands that flow into them.” Many farmers and businesses had countered that expanding the scope of waters subject to the act's jurisdiction was a power grab that would lead to greater permitting requirements for landowners and greater legal liability. They called on Congress to intervene. Source | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
At his (Trump's) core, he's a centrist and a populist. This is the beginning of the "Oh if we only nominated a conservative we could of won" as if conservatives haven't lost the nomination on their own. As if even though conservatives can't win in the Republican party, they would win a national election... People don't like "conservative" candidates, it's not the packaging, it's the ideas themselves. Not sure how many Republican nominations conservatives have to lose before they admit not even Republicans want to vote for a conservative, so there's 0 chance of a conservative winning a national election. As confident as people seem that Trump won't win (the Republican nomination) , I find it odd no one has even considered taking the field against Trump in a sig/ban bet. Starting to think it's mostly "hoping" Trump doesn't win the nomination as opposed to actually believing he wont. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
Not like there are any current issues with water quality and water safety (Flint Michigan). Elections have consequences. If we had a Republican president right now this would have passed and our waters would be just that much more corrupted. All of you complaining about how Democrats aren't quite the heroes you read about in myth need to remember that the Republicans really will do all the bad things they run on. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 21 2016 03:41 xDaunt wrote: I honestly don't see why this is so hard to see. Trump has purposefully said next to nothing regarding most of his policies. He's riding his immigration position and anti-establishment "fuck you" rhetoric to the republican nomination because that's all he has to do. He's virtually a blank slate position-wise. However, even a cursory look into his past reveals that he dude is about as centrist as you can get overall. Fuck, if nothing else, I'd like to think that I'd have proven my conservative bonafides around here over the years. Take it from an expert on the subject: Trump is not a conservative. I'm not sure where you've seen people argue that Trump was sincerely very conservative from the start. The point is that the positions and rhetoric that he's put forward in the course of this primary are very much to the far-right, to the point where his unfavorability ratings among the general electorate are extremely high. He would have absolutely no chance of winning the general election against Clinton, and I'm loving the fact that some conservatives in this thread think he would. You're in for another cold shower after Romney. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
his plan about individual taxation is extremely cynical and buys off middle class voters for oversized benefits to the wealthy. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On January 21 2016 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote: This is the beginning of the "Oh if we only nominated a conservative we could of won" as if conservatives haven't lost the nomination on their own. As if even though conservatives can't win in the Republican party, they would win a national election... People don't like "conservative" candidates, it's not the packaging, it's the ideas themselves. Not sure how many Republican nominations conservatives have to lose before they admit not even Republicans want to vote for a conservative, so there's 0 chance of a conservative winning a national election. As confident as people seem that Trump won't win (the Republican nomination) , I find it odd no one has even considered taking the field against Trump in a sig/ban bet. Starting to think it's mostly "hoping" Trump doesn't win the nomination as opposed to actually believing he wont. People campaigning as true conservatives are 2 for 3 in Presidential elections since WWII ended...4 for 5 if you include GWB, which I wouldn't. Not that moderate candidates like Eisenhower, Nixon, GHWB, etc can't win. But moderates also lose: Nixon, GHWB, Ford, Dole, McCain, Romney, Dewey. Not that Trump won't lose, or Cruz might not also win. But Conservative ideas are just as, or more successful in general elections when correctly articulated as moderate positions like "I want Obamacare, but less" or "the tax reform we just did with Clinton, but better!". The reason, for the mantra as you put it, "Oh if we only nominated a conservative we could of won" is not that those candidates would bring in more voters in with their ideas, but that they actually know how to criticize the ideas of the Left, or at the very least understand they can't let the character assassinations they will face go unchallenged, ala "Romney the dog abuser who once was a bully in high school". | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On January 21 2016 06:40 cLutZ wrote: People campaigning as true conservatives are 2 for 3 in Presidential elections since WWII ended...4 for 5 if you include GWB, which I wouldn't. Not that moderate candidates like Eisenhower, Nixon, GHWB, etc can't win. But moderates also lose: Nixon, GHWB, Ford, Dole, McCain, Romney, Dewey. Not that Trump won't lose, or Cruz might not also win. But Conservative ideas are just as, or more successful in general elections when correctly articulated as moderate positions like "I want Obamacare, but less" or "the tax reform we just did with Clinton, but better!". The reason, for the mantra as you put it, "Oh if we only nominated a conservative we could of won" is not that those candidates would bring in more voters in with their ideas, but that they actually know how to criticize the ideas of the Left, or at the very least understand they can't let the character assassinations they will face go unchallenged, ala "Romney the dog abuser who once was a bully in high school". So true conservatives actually have moderate positions? But moderates don't have conservative ideas? Is that what you're saying? Is there a "conservative" that says "I want Obamacare..." in any form? Or are you just being sarcastic and I'm missing it? | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
Of course they're conservative. Blatant handout-riches-to-the-rich conservative. Barack Obama's economic policies are conservative, whether you compare it to modern Europe or historical America. Every President since Ronald Reagan has essentially been using the Reagan tax plan, with SMALL variations that Republicans love to make a BIG deal about. And the result isn't so much "trickle-down effect" as it is an absolute oligarchy where people can work full-time jobs and still require government assistance to survive. And Trump is more conservative than Barack Obama. So, yes, he is conservative. As Mitt Romney might say, he is "severely" conservative. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 21 2016 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote: So true conservatives actually have moderate positions? But moderates don't have conservative ideas? Is that what you're saying? Is there a "conservative" that says "I want Obamacare..." in any form? Or are you just being sarcastic and I'm missing it? I think the term we use is “No True Scotsman”. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On January 21 2016 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote: So true conservatives actually have moderate positions? But moderates don't have conservative ideas? Is that what you're saying? Is there a "conservative" that says "I want Obamacare..." in any form? Or are you just being sarcastic and I'm missing it? ^Those were the positions of Romney and Dole respectively. Not the "conservative" candidates. Those were the "moderate positions" and how they were articulated. | ||
| ||
