|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 07 2020 10:05 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2020 09:40 Starlightsun wrote:On December 07 2020 09:14 IyMoon wrote:Leoffler just sounds like a robot. How many times is she going to say 'Radical Liberal' Geez and that evil smirk while telling lie after lie. How would you rate it compared to McConnell's evil laugh after admitting to Tucker Carlsen that he did everything possible to sabotage Obama from appointing court justices?
Dunno I never saw that clip. Something about Loeffler makes my skin crawl though the way she smiles, stares dead eyed into the camera, while reciting in monotone the story we all know so well: they're gonna take our guns, kill babies, flood the country with illegals, implement socialism etc. She must have said "radical liberal raphael warnock" over a dozen times, like an oral poet using an epithet. "I am the one who will protect Georgia, I will protect our way of life." Chilling to watch a human wolf making such an appeal to its sheep.
|
I didnt think it was possible for a human being to act as dead and lifeless as Kelly Loeffler. I eventually started keeping track of some things she was repeating (I almost want to rewatch it and really pick apart the repetition because she was REALLY repetitive here), in particular "American Dream," "Radical Liberal Raphael Warnocke," and "The president has the right to use every legal recourse..." came up 3+ times phrased precisely the same way. And the racism stuff, good lord, "I dont have a racist bone in my body," right up against "He wants us to REPENT for worshipping whiteness!" Kelly Loeffler thinks its okay to worship whiteness? Worshipping whiteness sounds like white supremacy to me, lol. That was a profoundly weird two moments where that was brought up. Oh how divisive it is not to WORSHIP WHITENESS! I also dislike that she was able to brush off the should-Congresspeople-be-able-to-do-stock-bullshit so easily.
I didn't find Warnocke to be particularly excellent but he was solid overall, and he looked like the most lively human being in existence up against Loeffler. In particular I think the question about what the "right" number for Coronavirus relief is was pretty poorly handled, I get what he was trying to get at, but he seemed clearly afraid of committing to a number and I imagine its because he was afraid of being labelled as some spendthrift Democrat, but when Loeffler gets to gloat on the huge numbers she apparently voted for it didn't make him look good in comparison, imo. He nailed the abortion question though, I think its a great appeal to more conservative Americans to frame the question just like he did, theres not enough room for a woman, her doctor, and the government, that was what I'd interpret as basically the ideal response. Overall he was solid, a little on the defensive for my tastes, but he had some strong responses and sounded like a real actual human being which is good.
I was also wondering where Loeffler got some of her numbers, what was she referring to when she said Georgia families would have to pay $75,000 for the Green New Deal and $2000 for taxes, is this referring to something in particular or was she making shit up?
|
On December 07 2020 11:58 Zambrah wrote:
I didnt think it was possible for a human being to act as dead and lifeless as Kelly Loeffler. I eventually started keeping track of some things she was repeating (I almost want to rewatch it and really pick apart the repetition because she was REALLY repetitive here), in particular "American Dream," "Radical Liberal Raphael Warnocke," and "The president has the right to use every legal recourse..." came up 3+ times phrased precisely the same way. And the racism stuff, good lord, "I dont have a racist bone in my body," right up against "He wants us to REPENT for worshipping whiteness!" Kelly Loeffler thinks its okay to worship whiteness? Worshipping whiteness sounds like white supremacy to me, lol. That was a profoundly weird two moments where that was brought up. Oh how divisive it is not to WORSHIP WHITENESS! I also dislike that she was able to brush off the should-Congresspeople-be-able-to-do-stock-bullshit so easily.
I didn't find Warnocke to be particularly excellent but he was solid overall, and he looked like the most lively human being in existence up against Loeffler. In particular I think the question about what the "right" number for Coronavirus relief is was pretty poorly handled, I get what he was trying to get at, but he seemed clearly afraid of committing to a number and I imagine its because he was afraid of being labelled as some spendthrift Democrat, but when Loeffler gets to gloat on the huge numbers she apparently voted for it didn't make him look good in comparison, imo. He nailed the abortion question though, I think its a great appeal to more conservative Americans to frame the question just like he did, theres not enough room for a woman, her doctor, and the government, that was what I'd interpret as basically the ideal response. Overall he was solid, a little on the defensive for my tastes, but he had some strong responses and sounded like a real actual human being which is good.
I was also wondering where Loeffler got some of her numbers, what was she referring to when she said Georgia families would have to pay $75,000 for the Green New Deal and $2000 for taxes, is this referring to something in particular or was she making shit up?
That sounds frankly terrifying. Worship whiteness? *shudder*
Put the question surely is whether or not the sloganeering appeals to her voter base. Aside from the worshipping whiteness thing - which I'm sure should put off even most Republicans giving how creepily that's phrased - that sounds like stock messaging.
|
On December 07 2020 21:28 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2020 11:58 Zambrah wrote:
I didnt think it was possible for a human being to act as dead and lifeless as Kelly Loeffler. I eventually started keeping track of some things she was repeating (I almost want to rewatch it and really pick apart the repetition because she was REALLY repetitive here), in particular "American Dream," "Radical Liberal Raphael Warnocke," and "The president has the right to use every legal recourse..." came up 3+ times phrased precisely the same way. And the racism stuff, good lord, "I dont have a racist bone in my body," right up against "He wants us to REPENT for worshipping whiteness!" Kelly Loeffler thinks its okay to worship whiteness? Worshipping whiteness sounds like white supremacy to me, lol. That was a profoundly weird two moments where that was brought up. Oh how divisive it is not to WORSHIP WHITENESS! I also dislike that she was able to brush off the should-Congresspeople-be-able-to-do-stock-bullshit so easily.
I didn't find Warnocke to be particularly excellent but he was solid overall, and he looked like the most lively human being in existence up against Loeffler. In particular I think the question about what the "right" number for Coronavirus relief is was pretty poorly handled, I get what he was trying to get at, but he seemed clearly afraid of committing to a number and I imagine its because he was afraid of being labelled as some spendthrift Democrat, but when Loeffler gets to gloat on the huge numbers she apparently voted for it didn't make him look good in comparison, imo. He nailed the abortion question though, I think its a great appeal to more conservative Americans to frame the question just like he did, theres not enough room for a woman, her doctor, and the government, that was what I'd interpret as basically the ideal response. Overall he was solid, a little on the defensive for my tastes, but he had some strong responses and sounded like a real actual human being which is good.
I was also wondering where Loeffler got some of her numbers, what was she referring to when she said Georgia families would have to pay $75,000 for the Green New Deal and $2000 for taxes, is this referring to something in particular or was she making shit up? That sounds frankly terrifying. Worship whiteness? *shudder* Put the question surely is whether or not the sloganeering appeals to her voter base. Aside from the worshipping whiteness thing - which I'm sure should put off even most Republicans giving how creepily that's phrased - that sounds like stock messaging. If you think Republicans are put off by 'Worship whiteness" you haven't been paying a lot of attention to them.
|
On December 07 2020 21:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2020 21:28 iamthedave wrote:On December 07 2020 11:58 Zambrah wrote:
I didnt think it was possible for a human being to act as dead and lifeless as Kelly Loeffler. I eventually started keeping track of some things she was repeating (I almost want to rewatch it and really pick apart the repetition because she was REALLY repetitive here), in particular "American Dream," "Radical Liberal Raphael Warnocke," and "The president has the right to use every legal recourse..." came up 3+ times phrased precisely the same way. And the racism stuff, good lord, "I dont have a racist bone in my body," right up against "He wants us to REPENT for worshipping whiteness!" Kelly Loeffler thinks its okay to worship whiteness? Worshipping whiteness sounds like white supremacy to me, lol. That was a profoundly weird two moments where that was brought up. Oh how divisive it is not to WORSHIP WHITENESS! I also dislike that she was able to brush off the should-Congresspeople-be-able-to-do-stock-bullshit so easily.
I didn't find Warnocke to be particularly excellent but he was solid overall, and he looked like the most lively human being in existence up against Loeffler. In particular I think the question about what the "right" number for Coronavirus relief is was pretty poorly handled, I get what he was trying to get at, but he seemed clearly afraid of committing to a number and I imagine its because he was afraid of being labelled as some spendthrift Democrat, but when Loeffler gets to gloat on the huge numbers she apparently voted for it didn't make him look good in comparison, imo. He nailed the abortion question though, I think its a great appeal to more conservative Americans to frame the question just like he did, theres not enough room for a woman, her doctor, and the government, that was what I'd interpret as basically the ideal response. Overall he was solid, a little on the defensive for my tastes, but he had some strong responses and sounded like a real actual human being which is good.
I was also wondering where Loeffler got some of her numbers, what was she referring to when she said Georgia families would have to pay $75,000 for the Green New Deal and $2000 for taxes, is this referring to something in particular or was she making shit up? That sounds frankly terrifying. Worship whiteness? *shudder* Put the question surely is whether or not the sloganeering appeals to her voter base. Aside from the worshipping whiteness thing - which I'm sure should put off even most Republicans giving how creepily that's phrased - that sounds like stock messaging. If you think Republicans are put off by 'Worship whiteness" you haven't been paying a lot of attention to them.
I'd think a lot of Republicans wouldn't like that phrasing. It's a little... well... sacrilegious for one. Bad sloganeering, if you like. I don't imagine that language would appeal to the majority of Republicans at all. I don't know if it's good for Georgians though.
|
On December 07 2020 22:49 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2020 21:38 Gorsameth wrote:On December 07 2020 21:28 iamthedave wrote:On December 07 2020 11:58 Zambrah wrote:
I didnt think it was possible for a human being to act as dead and lifeless as Kelly Loeffler. I eventually started keeping track of some things she was repeating (I almost want to rewatch it and really pick apart the repetition because she was REALLY repetitive here), in particular "American Dream," "Radical Liberal Raphael Warnocke," and "The president has the right to use every legal recourse..." came up 3+ times phrased precisely the same way. And the racism stuff, good lord, "I dont have a racist bone in my body," right up against "He wants us to REPENT for worshipping whiteness!" Kelly Loeffler thinks its okay to worship whiteness? Worshipping whiteness sounds like white supremacy to me, lol. That was a profoundly weird two moments where that was brought up. Oh how divisive it is not to WORSHIP WHITENESS! I also dislike that she was able to brush off the should-Congresspeople-be-able-to-do-stock-bullshit so easily.
I didn't find Warnocke to be particularly excellent but he was solid overall, and he looked like the most lively human being in existence up against Loeffler. In particular I think the question about what the "right" number for Coronavirus relief is was pretty poorly handled, I get what he was trying to get at, but he seemed clearly afraid of committing to a number and I imagine its because he was afraid of being labelled as some spendthrift Democrat, but when Loeffler gets to gloat on the huge numbers she apparently voted for it didn't make him look good in comparison, imo. He nailed the abortion question though, I think its a great appeal to more conservative Americans to frame the question just like he did, theres not enough room for a woman, her doctor, and the government, that was what I'd interpret as basically the ideal response. Overall he was solid, a little on the defensive for my tastes, but he had some strong responses and sounded like a real actual human being which is good.
I was also wondering where Loeffler got some of her numbers, what was she referring to when she said Georgia families would have to pay $75,000 for the Green New Deal and $2000 for taxes, is this referring to something in particular or was she making shit up? That sounds frankly terrifying. Worship whiteness? *shudder* Put the question surely is whether or not the sloganeering appeals to her voter base. Aside from the worshipping whiteness thing - which I'm sure should put off even most Republicans giving how creepily that's phrased - that sounds like stock messaging. If you think Republicans are put off by 'Worship whiteness" you haven't been paying a lot of attention to them. I'd think a lot of Republicans wouldn't like that phrasing. It's a little... well... sacrilegious for one.
>grab them by the pussy
>I could murder someone in 5th av and get away with it
and the only mention of Christ in his own book:
>’For Christ’s sake, Mary,’ he’d say, ’Enough is enough, turn it off. They’re all a bunch of con artists.’
Their God-given president ^.^
|
Indeed, the deafening silence from Conservatives when it comes to blatant hypocrisy and detestable morals from their supposed bastion of religious values speaks for them plenty.
|
I think "worshipping whiteness" was a phrase Warnock used in one of his sermons. Loeffler was simply doing the moral indignation display that GOP does when faced with any charges of racism. It absolutely was good targeted messaging because the GOP base wants to feel like aggrieved victims of persecution who are under attack. While they attack and persecute everyone else of course.
|
Sanders and Hawley (a GOP senator) are both saying they're going to oppose the COVID bill if it has no additional direct payments to US citizens, with Hawley saying he has been lobbying Trump to veto if none are included.
Hawley said it in a politico interview:
The Missouri Republican lobbied Trump to veto any coronavirus aid bill that does not contain a second tranche of checks to Americans in a phone call on Saturday. And Hawley said the president listened intently as he flew home on Air Force One from a rally in Georgia.
“I said, ‘I think it's vital that any relief include direct payments, and I'm not gonna vote for it if it doesn't.’ And I also urged him to veto any bill that did not have direct payments in it,” Hawley said in an interview on Monday.
Hawley argues that it is “wild” that a Senate GOP proposal and a bipartisan $908 billion plan offers aid but doesn’t include more checks like those $1,200 payments in March’s massive CARES Act package. And he said Trump seemed receptive to the argument.
“We had a good conversation about it. And, you know, a pretty thorough conversation. He asked a number of questions about the state of play of the different proposals. And I think it's fair to say that he was surprised at the direction that some of these were headed,” Hawley said.
The White House declined to comment on Hawley’s conversation with Trump. Judd Deere, a White House spokesperson, said, “President Trump understands that Americans are hurting and need relief, which is why the White House continues to engage with those in congressional leadership who are serious about moving quickly to approve billions in aid.”
If Trump were to take an antagonistic approach toward a bipartisan, bicameral proposal of $908 billion in new aid, it could easily sink the effort and delay a new round of relief until Joe Biden is sworn in as president in January. Trump, who hasn’t been deeply involved in talks since negotiations broke down before the election, seemed to bless the bipartisan effort last week, buoying Republicans like Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana who are trying to strike a compromise. But that support is now in question.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/07/hawley-trump-veto-covid-bill-443444
It's all getting a little weird, as it was senate republicans who initially caused their removal. I can't entirely tell if this is kabuki theater to kill any stimulus or if Hawley is actually serious.
Per AP:
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, indicated that excluding the checks while assuring small-business aid and renters’ assistance was the only way to reach agreement with Republicans who are putting firm limits on the bill’s final price tag.
“The $1,200 check, it cost we believe nationally $300 billion to give you an idea,” he said. “The Democrats have always wanted a larger number, but we were told we couldn’t get anything through the Republicans, except this $900 billion level.”
[...]
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., agreed that a new round of direct checks “may be a go” at some point. “This is not a stimulus bill, it’s a relief bill,” he said. “And it’s something for the next three to four months to help those in greatest need.”
https://apnews.com/article/lawmakers-covid-19-relief-bill-93ae053eda56da2f24d82049f846ca0e
|
The schism in the GOP is just starting. People got whiplash about trump saying no stimulus deal and then that day saying he wants one. Its beacuse there is now true believers in Congress alongside the hardened politicians. The first stoked his ego and explained that this is what Republicans say they want. Then the second called and explained that he would win with a stimulus deal. The whole brand about the GOP is that for good or ill they work as a team far more than the dems. McConnell can't do anything that'll cause a revolt but at the same time knows that he needs something to deliver to win in Georgia in January.
He has built himself a great sandcastle and the tide is finally coming in.
|
As far as debt spending direct payments are the least worst. There's less corruption (though there is some still), it mitigates the Cantillon effect, there's no apparatchiks picking winners/losers so less market distortion re: resource allocation and profitability signaling, and well, if you're into solely politics it likely polls the best (see: every entitlement program on Earth being a big electoral boon to those who shovel money to the voters (LBJ/FDR)). If Republicans were smart politically they'd push for like a 3,200$ check and cut out all the other junk. You could also make it progressive if you wanted to - 150k+ = 1750, <150k = 4000.
I'd imagine Dems would almost be forced politically to support such a "skinny" bill, but these types of bills are almost a no-go because politicians like wielding their power and being wooed by interests and cronies (and rewarding "their side").
|
On December 07 2020 09:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2020 09:21 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2020 08:49 Gorsameth wrote:On December 07 2020 08:03 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2020 02:43 iamthedave wrote:On December 06 2020 03:52 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 03:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 03:16 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 02:08 Danglars wrote:
Every sentence Hillary uttered to try and boost her working-class support felt staged and part of a political stunt. She didn’t even bother to show up in Wisconsin to speak to the rust belt voters there, with predictable results. And calling people deplorables is the worst way to convince people that you’re in it to win their vote.
She’s not the example of why appealing to the voters doesn’t work for Democrats; far from. I'd say Clinton is actually a great example of the overall mindset that prevents Democrats from appealing to the working class. They aren't willing to address why these people are mad, they aren't willing to do things that will appease these people. The poor, working class hate the elite. They understand that most of their problems are actually the result of an out of touch elite who does not feel like they actually need to make concessions to the working class. That's why most Democrat measures don't really actually do anything to harm the elite. Clinton focused on racism and elitist sentiments and hoped Joe Shmoe would agree with her. But it all comes down to a fundamental unwillingness to address the actual grievances of the working class. Republicans are totally willing to address people's anger, fan the flames and give a huge middle finger to the elite. Now, they still completely don't follow through by giving tax breaks to the rich and allowing for the working class to suffer more and more. So in my eyes Republicans are actually WORSE for working class people than Democrats. But its not about what a party does, all that matters is validating anger and saying the right things. In that regard, the republican party wildly outperforms democrats. The tax cuts for the rich are an elite opinion: you can't be happy for the actual reduction in taxes that working class people experienced, because you're supposed to be mad that the people paying the bulk of tax revenue profited more. Yes, because they are still paying unethically too little. They could double the amount they pay and still live excessively extravagant lives. Their capability to do good far exceeds the good they currently do. If I donated an extra $500 per month I would feel the pain from that. If billionaires had their effective tax rate tripled they would still be buying new houses every year without worry. Too many people are suffering to allow for extreme wealth to flourish. Maybe if people weren't suffering, whatever, but there are large groups of people who are excessively suffering and we aren't doing enough to help them. It shouldn't be legally possible for Bezos to have the kind of empire he has. I never said people of your type wouldn’t double down lecturing people on why extra money in their pocketbook was a bad thing and Trump + Republicans voting that into existence was also a bad thing. Your class war against the rich is, well, why your message that they’re acting out of anger is the pot calling the kettle black. For the rest, quote and respond to the substantial majority of my post, not the single sentence to use to continue talking down to the working class while pretending to ask for their votes. 'Extra money in your pocketbook' is now a metaphor for 'more money made daily than most people will make in their entire lives' then? You know Jeff Bezos makes several million dollars hourly, right? You consider that dismissable as 'extra money in his pocketbook'? You don't have to be angry at rich people to recognise that that is an absolutely disgusting state of affairs and an absolutely untenable movement of wealth upwards. The problem with the epistemology here is presuming you have to be mad about Jeff Bezos in order to be happy about a tax cut that positively affects you. Absolutely no metaphor necessary. I can barely understand your reply as being a response to my post. Are we talking about the tax cut that will expire and turn into a tax increase to pay for the tax cut for the rich that doesn't expire? Because I don't see why the working class should be happy about getting fucked by the Republicans on that one. Much like "temporary" tax increases, I expect future congresses to extend the expiration ... because (newsflash) the working class like their tax cuts. Also +1 for responding to questions about why Jeff Bezos means they can't be happy with a tangent that addresses nothing. And I expect the Republicans to fight tooth and nail to prevent that 'disasterous' increase in the deficit. And then blame the Democrats for the taxes going up. Its been a while but I think the exact same thing happened with the Bush temporary tax cuts no? ps. I don't care about Bezos, I was just responding to the conversation happening by quoting the latest post in the discussion. But since you asked, the poor should not be paying for tax cuts for the rich. That is so ass backwards it defies logic. And the rich certainly don't need to pay less taxes.
Obama made the tax cuts permanent for <400k I & <450k Fam. The only time you hear anything about deficits is in divided Government. Its basically a talking point to "hurt the other team" when you hold 1 of the 3 branches but neither D's or R's care about it at all. At the rate we're going the country will be bankrupt in a few decades.
PS: the poor pay effective negative tax rates in the US. Europeans are entirely clueless about US tax structure (we're the most progressive OECD country when it comes to taxes - European taxation is notoriously regressive with low corporate tax rates, high VAT, and middle class taxes). Regressive taxes are the only way to pay for large welfare states because the pool of payers is so high by the way.
|
European taxation is less progressive but certainly not regressive. Including transfer payments by government most European tax systems are more progressive than the US as a whole. You're only considering one part of the equation.
|
On December 08 2020 17:47 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2020 09:31 Gorsameth wrote:On December 07 2020 09:21 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2020 08:49 Gorsameth wrote:On December 07 2020 08:03 Danglars wrote:On December 07 2020 02:43 iamthedave wrote:On December 06 2020 03:52 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 03:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 03:16 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I'd say Clinton is actually a great example of the overall mindset that prevents Democrats from appealing to the working class. They aren't willing to address why these people are mad, they aren't willing to do things that will appease these people. The poor, working class hate the elite. They understand that most of their problems are actually the result of an out of touch elite who does not feel like they actually need to make concessions to the working class. That's why most Democrat measures don't really actually do anything to harm the elite. Clinton focused on racism and elitist sentiments and hoped Joe Shmoe would agree with her. But it all comes down to a fundamental unwillingness to address the actual grievances of the working class. Republicans are totally willing to address people's anger, fan the flames and give a huge middle finger to the elite. Now, they still completely don't follow through by giving tax breaks to the rich and allowing for the working class to suffer more and more. So in my eyes Republicans are actually WORSE for working class people than Democrats. But its not about what a party does, all that matters is validating anger and saying the right things. In that regard, the republican party wildly outperforms democrats. The tax cuts for the rich are an elite opinion: you can't be happy for the actual reduction in taxes that working class people experienced, because you're supposed to be mad that the people paying the bulk of tax revenue profited more. Yes, because they are still paying unethically too little. They could double the amount they pay and still live excessively extravagant lives. Their capability to do good far exceeds the good they currently do. If I donated an extra $500 per month I would feel the pain from that. If billionaires had their effective tax rate tripled they would still be buying new houses every year without worry. Too many people are suffering to allow for extreme wealth to flourish. Maybe if people weren't suffering, whatever, but there are large groups of people who are excessively suffering and we aren't doing enough to help them. It shouldn't be legally possible for Bezos to have the kind of empire he has. I never said people of your type wouldn’t double down lecturing people on why extra money in their pocketbook was a bad thing and Trump + Republicans voting that into existence was also a bad thing. Your class war against the rich is, well, why your message that they’re acting out of anger is the pot calling the kettle black. For the rest, quote and respond to the substantial majority of my post, not the single sentence to use to continue talking down to the working class while pretending to ask for their votes. 'Extra money in your pocketbook' is now a metaphor for 'more money made daily than most people will make in their entire lives' then? You know Jeff Bezos makes several million dollars hourly, right? You consider that dismissable as 'extra money in his pocketbook'? You don't have to be angry at rich people to recognise that that is an absolutely disgusting state of affairs and an absolutely untenable movement of wealth upwards. The problem with the epistemology here is presuming you have to be mad about Jeff Bezos in order to be happy about a tax cut that positively affects you. Absolutely no metaphor necessary. I can barely understand your reply as being a response to my post. Are we talking about the tax cut that will expire and turn into a tax increase to pay for the tax cut for the rich that doesn't expire? Because I don't see why the working class should be happy about getting fucked by the Republicans on that one. Much like "temporary" tax increases, I expect future congresses to extend the expiration ... because (newsflash) the working class like their tax cuts. Also +1 for responding to questions about why Jeff Bezos means they can't be happy with a tangent that addresses nothing. And I expect the Republicans to fight tooth and nail to prevent that 'disasterous' increase in the deficit. And then blame the Democrats for the taxes going up. Its been a while but I think the exact same thing happened with the Bush temporary tax cuts no? ps. I don't care about Bezos, I was just responding to the conversation happening by quoting the latest post in the discussion. But since you asked, the poor should not be paying for tax cuts for the rich. That is so ass backwards it defies logic. And the rich certainly don't need to pay less taxes. Obama made the tax cuts permanent for <400k I & <450k Fam. The only time you hear anything about deficits is in divided Government. Its basically a talking point to "hurt the other team" when you hold 1 of the 3 branches but neither D's or R's care about it at all. At the rate we're going the country will be bankrupt in a few decades. PS: the poor pay effective negative tax rates in the US. Europeans are entirely clueless about US tax structure (we're the most progressive OECD country when it comes to taxes - European taxation is notoriously regressive with low corporate tax rates, high VAT, and middle class taxes). Regressive taxes are the only way to pay for large welfare states because the pool of payers is so high by the way.
Large US corporations pay significantly less taxes than most European ones do. Creative accounting does wonders for that, the official corporate tax rates are for plebs only. OECD countries on average collect 10% of their total budget revenue from corporate taxes. The US? 4%.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-taxes-1-2-percent-13-billion-2019/
Also, lumping all of Europe together as if tax policies of UK, France, or Netherlands are one and the same is pretty silly.
|
United States42017 Posts
Wegandi, again, you’re not understanding the whole tax environment in the US. And I’m saying this not as a European but as an American CPA. You can’t just look at Federal income tax rates for individuals and corporations and call it a day. It’s more complicated than that.
|
On December 08 2020 23:07 KwarK wrote:
Wegandi, again, you’re not understanding the whole tax environment in the US. And I’m saying this not as a European but as an American CPA. You can’t just look at Federal income tax rates for individuals and corporations and call it a day. It’s more complicated than that.
Sure, but then why do so many people get up in arms about statutory tax rates? You can't at the same time point to them to use them to talk about "poor paying for rich tax cuts" and then say, well, you can't really use statutory tax rates because it's more complicated (when trying to rebut the fact that US taxes are extremely progressive in nature and that poor people here pay effectively negative tax rates). Progressives are like Marie Antoinette.
|
United States42017 Posts
On December 09 2020 05:12 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2020 23:07 KwarK wrote:
Wegandi, again, you’re not understanding the whole tax environment in the US. And I’m saying this not as a European but as an American CPA. You can’t just look at Federal income tax rates for individuals and corporations and call it a day. It’s more complicated than that. Sure, but then why do so many people get up in arms about statutory tax rates? You can't at the same time point to them to use them to talk about "poor paying for rich tax cuts" and then say, well, you can't really use statutory tax rates because it's more complicated (when trying to rebut the fact that US taxes are extremely progressive in nature and that poor people here pay effectively negative tax rates). Progressives are like Marie Antoinette.
Because they're also not experts on taxation. The depth of the analysis of the people you're responding to is "deficit go up, tax on rich go down, therefore tax cuts for rich paid for out of public purse".
|
Is that statement not true?
Ignoring covid, companies appeared to significantly improve their bottom lines after the Trump cuts, and the deficit was comfortably rising under the party of fiscal conservatism. By definition, this increases the strain on the public purse. No?
|
United States42017 Posts
On December 09 2020 06:56 Belisarius wrote:
Is that statement not true?
Ignoring covid, companies appeared to significantly improve their bottom lines after the Trump cuts, and the deficit was comfortably rising under the party of fiscal conservatism. By definition, this increases the strain on the public purse. No?
Yes, but that's not the same thing as the poor paying for tax cuts for the rich unless the poor are the ones who will have to repay the deficit.
|
I mean it's pretty close, especially now that the party of no is about to rediscover its favourite word.
You're responding to someone who just claimed that "us companies pay less than the headline rate" is equivalent to "it doesn't matter what the rate is".
I'm not sure the line you're caricaturing is the low hanging fruit here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
