EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3788
| 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. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On May 11 2016 08:19 SK.Testie wrote: The fact that people making $0-25,000 a year would pay 0 income tax... doesn't that make Trump better for royally fucked families? I picture a Trump presidency as poorer families getting more for the dollars they earn. Even if wages went up less than Bernie or Hillary's proposals. You could technically make more by being taxed less. Without that constant pressure of taxation you could scrimp and save your own money. They can make their own choices with their savings because the government is off their back. Is this too simplistic and naive? Yes, this is indeed a bit over simplified. First of all, my family was already paying almost zero tax because its already essentially as you described. You need to also consider, why are these people poor? Do they have jobs with lots of security? Probably not. So when they get laid off, what the fuck do they do? If you live paycheck to paycheck, losing your job is kind of a death sentence. unemployment gets you close, but you are accumulating debt by taking out new credit cards to cover the $300/month you just lost. The bootstrap model does not allow for volatility. It doesn't account for all the random hectic shit that tends to be involved with poor families. In my family's case, we also had other older family members to consider. The big thing is volatility and consistency. The safety net allows for things to get wild for a bit, then go back to normal. By allowing my family to use foodstamps instead of a new credit card, my mom was able to avoid taking on more debt than she already had. If you get a job, but make about as much as you did before, yet you had to take out a small loan or credit card to make up the $600 you didn't have for a couple months, when will you be able to pay off this $600? In the end, you pay it off a year later for $1000. People spend more and cost more as a result of unfortunate situations. When people are able to stumble, but not fall on their face, the country as a whole saves a ton of money. You know how if you don't replace your brake pads, you start actually grinding at some metal shit that thus costs WAY more to repair? Same deal. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 11 2016 08:19 SK.Testie wrote: The fact that people making $0-25,000 a year would pay 0 income tax... doesn't that make Trump better for royally fucked families? I picture a Trump presidency as poorer families getting more for the dollars they earn. Even if wages went up less than Bernie or Hillary's proposals. You could technically make more by being taxed less. Without that constant pressure of taxation you could scrimp and save your own money. They can make their own choices with their savings because the government is off their back. Is this too simplistic and naive? For the lowest income groups, social programs and being able to find employment are way more important than paying taxes. That said, I am not sure about his stances on social programs... is anyone? | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On May 11 2016 08:19 SK.Testie wrote: The fact that people making $0-25,000 a year would pay 0 income tax... doesn't that make Trump better for royally fucked families? I picture a Trump presidency as poorer families getting more for the dollars they earn. Even if wages went up less than Bernie or Hillary's proposals. You could technically make more by being taxed less. Without that constant pressure of taxation you could scrimp and save your own money. They can make their own choices with their savings because the government is off their back. Is this too simplistic and naive? Short answer that its too simplistic. Long answer is that its all about what the minimum costs are that the american people want/need versus what the maximum tax can people afford. Then making a cost benefit analysis of which is actually more value per dollar spent. Its complex because the values relative and different from district to district, let alone state to state. Lower middle class and lower class families near the mexico border should love the wall idea, if Trump promises it will be built by americans--because it would mean jobs. People as far north as montana could care less about the wall since it provides neither jobs nor security. Conversely, new businesses should all hate any candidate who is pro bank regulations because the first to suffer are borrowers who are not able to borrow as easily from banks on a tighter noose. At the same time, small business owners should love banking restrictions as it is better able to prevent same scale competition from popping up. Etc... It would make more sense if some democrats voted from trump and some republicans voted for hilary based on which demographics in their specific local area benefits the most. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And this is also why protectionist platforms are so popular, even if they are flawed. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On May 11 2016 08:26 travis wrote: That said, I am not sure about his stances on social programs... is anyone? The assumption thus far is that he's decently socially liberal and believes in social security & welfare and lower taxes for the poor. He's been adamant that, "we're not going to have people dying on the streets. We're going to take care of people." I assume he'll leave it unchanged until he brings it up. His big things he talks about most are trade & the border. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I'd address both of them if I were in congress. In housing excess regulation at the local level is one of the common problems; though scaling that back from a federal level would be difficult. Wage stagnation, I'd look to see what I could do; some of it is structural changes in the economy for which there is no truly good solution; as a stopgap adjusting some tax rates based on trends of who's benefitting could help smooth those out somewhat. thread too busy, people answer when i'm busy typing response  | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On May 11 2016 08:59 SK.Testie wrote: Thanks for the answers. I don't have the best grasp on America's social welfare net so I figured I was oversimplifying things there. The assumption thus far is that he's decently socially liberal and believes in social security & welfare and lower taxes for the poor. He's been adamant that, "we're not going to have people dying on the streets. We're going to take care of people." I assume he'll leave it unchanged until he brings it up. His big things he talks about most are trade & the border. The wording that Trump uses makes it seem like he intends to expand social programs. Historically, Trump has always been in favor of single payer. Edit: With regards to West Virginia, Clinton is going to have a hard time in West Virginia because she's so violently anti-coal and obsessed with clean energy. Yet she is called a republican? She gets such a different label depending on who is attacking her at that moment. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On May 11 2016 09:04 Mohdoo wrote: The wording that Trump uses makes it seem like he intends to expand social programs. Historically, Trump has always been in favor of single payer. Can you really expand social programs when you intend to cut taxes though? There is always the print more money plan I guess ^_^ | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
 | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On May 11 2016 09:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Can you really expand social programs when you intend to cut taxes though? There is always the print more money plan I guess ^_^ Its really simple; you cut programs. You cut taxes, bringing revenue down X You cut social programs, reducing spending by Y This means we have (X1 - X2) - (Y1 - Y2) to spend on other programs. So long as the expanded/added programs (Z) is at least equal to the new X - Y, then you're fine. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24264 Posts
On May 11 2016 09:19 Mohdoo wrote: Clinton at 45% in West Virginia, highest she'll be all night She did beat Obama there. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 11 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/730169831069122560 I just want to point out that I love they are trying to pass that off as a data base error, but are still sending emails. It's like they hoped everyone would forget. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
White population helped her in 2008. She's relying much more heavily on black vote in 2016. States with high white populations tend to go well for Sanders. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On May 11 2016 09:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Can you really expand social programs when you intend to cut taxes though? There is always the print more money plan I guess ^_^ There's always issues of the government wasting money though which is a huge thing that's not a sexy topic to talk about because you have to go after each individual issue. Right now I think the government is extremely wasteful... I think you'd be hard pressed to find any governments that aren't either wasteful or outright corrupt. And the oversimplified version of it is basically that the government isn't spending their own money, so they are far less careful with it and care far less. There's a tonne of instances that governments, municipal, state, federal etc have either dropped the ball or outright stolen public funds. And it happens not just at every level, but in every industry imaginable. Transit, tourism, military, medical, education, etc. It's not a sexy issue though so it doesn't get a lot of screen time unless it's a really, really big scandal. Then again Obama's foreign policy of training fighters who basically just went and joined ISIS or Al-Nusra could be considered a pretty massive blunder but that's not even getting at all the domestic funds being wasted. The government needs to be reigned in a little and I don't see a vote for Clinton doing that. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lol just lol | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24264 Posts
On May 11 2016 09:41 Mohdoo wrote: White population helped her in 2008. She's relying much more heavily on black vote in 2016. States with high white populations tend to go well for Sanders. She won by 40%+, I don't think it can just be written off as "She's appealing more to black voters this time around". Something bigger than that changed to make WV voters support her a LOT less than in 08. | ||
| ||
