I listened to a few of the Democrat Convention speeches. I have followed a few of the candidate's stump speeches. And of course, I have heard a lot of the planned 'sound-bytes' we are all hearing on the news.
My first thoughts are of amazement that almost every Democrat candidate is proposing massive expenditures, and, of course, massive tax increases to go along with those expenditures. They all seem to be trying to out-free stuff each other.
The straw that broke this camel's back was Beto's "War Tax;" a graduated tax on every taxpayer, (everyone that pays taxes that is), to pay for veteran's healthcare.
So I planned to make a list as fodder for a particular question. I got this far:
Biden unveils $1.7 trillion climate plan, paid for by reversing Trump corporate tax cuts
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/04/joe-bid … -cuts.html
Beto O’Rourke has also called for $5 trillion in new investments to address climate change.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/04/joe-bid … -cuts.html
... and figured a list was just too much work and not really needed for my question.
I think all these "proposed" tax increases, ( I do understand that campaign rhetoric doesn't always translate to election victory proposals), are going to harm the Democrat candidate's chances with non-extreme/fringe voters.
What do you think? Are the candidates pandering to factions too small to elect them, or is this just campaign rhetoric?
ps. Biden is a particular disappointment for me.
Mexico will pay for Biden's plans, Gus. It worked before....
Come on Randy, you can do better than quips. It was an honest, intended to be a non-partisan jab, question.
How do you think all these 'new tax plan' ideas will be received by the non-party faction voters - meaning the Centrists Democrat and Independent voters?
Step up with an honest opinion bud.
GA, I think you will find that the "faction" may be much larger than you think. Why would mainstream candidates offer proposals that would attract a only faction? There is more dissatisfaction with the status quo than you realize or most of these issues that concern you so much would never have seen the light of day.
I don't see any benefit in corporate tax cuts save giving the well heeled that many more ways to evade the tax bite, continue to offshore American jobs and whine that the tax burden does not allow them to compete globally. Letting the rich soak the treasury is just increasing the deficits as Republicans should be aware that progressives will never allow the cuts to domestic programs for their schemes to work.
I am not qualified to speak on the debate over climate change nor understand the necessity of devoting so many resources to it.
I don't think that you have to sound the alarm, with a schlorotic and obstinate GOP Senate still in power, too many new and appropriate ideas won't reach fruition. But, like Dad use to tell me, "better to aim for the moon and hit an eagle then aim for the eagle and hit a stone on the ground." Yes, the progressive team is shooting for the moon, going all out, lunatics in a positive way.
Biden, if nothing else, is a political animal and as such he reads the tea leaves and recognizes that the straddle the fence approach is worthless in this election cycle.
You make some good points Cred. maybe I am underestimating the size of the "factions." I don't think so, but it is possible.
My thinking is this; There is a Left, (your "progressives"), voter block, a Centrist, (Democrat and Republican), voter block, and then there are the Independents.
It is my thought that the large majority of Independent voters are Centrist voters. Were they not Centrist they wouldn't be Independent, they would be party affiliated. That is the reasoning behind my thoughts that all these new "tax increase plans" are directed at factions and not the general public voter.
Also, I don't think I underestimate all voter's dissatisfaction with the status quo. Certainly not for myself, and certainly not for voters in conversations I am privy to.
My perception is that, like myself, the general public voter is disgusted with the current, (and past), status quo behavior of our politicians.
To your point about corporate and "well-heeled," isn't your real complaint that they can use the tax laws to their benefit in ways that the Average Joe can't?
That leads to the Biden Climate change proposal. If you dislike the effects of the Trump tax cut legislation--and the deficit addition if produced--are you okay with those same deficit numbers if they are directed at a Green New Deal program?
Tell me, what do you mean by "Letting the rich soak the treasury . . ."?
And, enough with the "schlorotic, [sclerotic(sp?])." I understand, (from your frequent usage), that it is a favorite vocabulary word, but, what does that have to do with the OP's question?
As with the rest of your comment, you are presenting defensive partisan points. My question was simply whether you think the general public voter will be receptive to all these new tax increase proposals.
To that question, what do you think? Are you okay with Beto's "War Tax" or Warren's "wealth tax," or Ling's "VAT tax"?
Are you, in your Progressive philosophy a large enough faction to win the General election? Are you okay with all these tax increase proposals as claims of legitimacy deserving of winning the primaries, regardless of the feasibility of the claims once the primary rhetoric falls under the fact-checkers microscopes?
Your final point about Biden really strikes home. I was a Biden supporter. Years ago I knew the guy from banquet and event participation, and I like the authenticity of his political history and would have been a Biden supporter. But, his recent capitulation to "whatever it takes" to out-free stuff his competitors to get the vote has destroyed my vision of his authenticity.
In my view, he is now 'just another politician' and has tossed his historical legitimacy as an honest guy, (at least in my view), by the wayside because it doesn't help his cause.
The end never ever justifies the means! (okay, maybe not never ever, but at least, not usually)
GA, we are already up to our asses in deficits, I don't see any success with the current system, so why continue to cling to it without any real consideration of another method?
Donald Trump was elected as the "outsider" that would reform the system, but he is a thick as thieves with the worst of the problem porkers in Washington. But he has managed to fool many, but not I, because his track record exposed his true nature. People are still looking for answers, but this time the go to an dedicated and experienced crusader for them and not just another portly plutocrat.
While you are content with a fresh coat of paint on the current system which I consider as structurally inequitable and corrupt, I want more comprehensive change, without going so far as to fundamentally change the capitalistic structure of this economy. And my spokespeople are in a key position to explain what is currently wrong with the system, present the proposed changes and why they are necessary.
All bets are off, GA, if a boorish man with no prior political experience like Donald Trump could win the presidency, anything is possible.
I believe that bailing out Wall Street and the banksters, lining the pockets of defense contractors under the endless cry of "needing more defense outlays" , along with having the oligarchs virtually write laws that benifit them in our legislature is a waste of resources. It is not a matter of taxes, more than it is a matter of where resources are to be allocated, and you and I are on differering planets in regards to this.
I will take my chances with Warren and her ideas.
Joe is OK, but the times are demanding more from those who say they are Democrats, so no DINO's allowed.
It's hard to argue with your logic Cred, (at least most of it)
Although I am a strong believer in the proven value of tradition and prescription when it comes to a society's governing, the traditions and prescriptions I think of are not the same ol'-same ol' issues you mention.
My traditions and prescriptions are more foundational, such as the form and method of our governing. So while I don't think large radical changes are a safe path, I do want much more than just a new coat of paint.
I guess this is just one of those Oh well moments. As you said, if a Trump can get elected, so can anyone.
From the looks of the Democratic field, if it isn't going to be Biden, I suppose Warren would be my second choice.
The need to respond to change when necessary is more important than maintaining tradition just for its own sake.
The only constant is Democracy, Rule of Law, and Capitalism as our fundamental economic system. Those prescriptions and traditions I interpret broadly to define our society, but betwixt and between much has been and needed to be accommodated as part of necessary changes over time part of which enhances the democratic experience for more rather than than fewer citizens, and prevented oligarchic interests from ruling over us all.
Tradition was what 1950's era white Southerners complained was being disturbed by civil rights protests during that period.
Women were once completely subject to their spouses, not able to own property, etc. that was "tradition" too.
Tradition is splendid when people are not subordinated as a result of them.
Be careful, GA, Senator Warren is strong shade of blue, you may find that a bit disconcerting. But at least she is the authentic article.
Warren has authored or co-authored some books, I will be getting around to reading them, but that alone puts her ahead of any of these other wanna-be Presidents.
The Fragile Middle Class: Americans in Debt. (with Teresa A. Sullivan and Jay Westbrook)
The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents are Going Broke. (with Amelia Warren Tyagi)
There is no way I'd support Biden, 'Creepy Joe' is too accurate a label. He is 100% establishment hack and would bring back the worst elements in D.C. politics... one of the best things Trump has done is shake up that rats nest and sent many of the vermin scurrying.
Cred you are misunderstanding my reference,( and preference), to tradition and prescription as they relate to modern, (and not-so-modern), acts.
You should look deeper and more foundationally to understand what I mean. I am certainly not talking about traditions such as the man being the head of the household or a Southern tradition of white supremacy.
You want radical change in our government, and I may want that too. But my radical change will not disregard the tradition and prescription of our history of governance just because I am dissatisfied with the current situation.
I get the impression that your radical change would be happy with just such a change. To hell with what has worked for centuries, what did they know, let's try something completely new.
To get an idea of what I mean by tradition and prescription look at what Burke or Kirk, (or even Locke for that matter), have to say about what those terms mean relative to the governance of a society.
A Cliff Note's explanation might offer a comparison of a sixteen-year old's "I know it all" attitude to his grandfather's indulgent smirk of "Sure you do."
Another cliche' explanation might be the wisdom of the admonishment to not throw the baby out with the bath water.
You want change, I want change. But I want change that doesn't ignore the wisdom of the traditions and prescriptions that got us this far. I am not so confident you are as cautious.
I don't know that we are seeing things so differently. I never suggested that we destroy the foundations of this republic. I never intended my desire for change to go that far. We can make some structural changes in the ways are currently done, without us all being reduced to anarchy. Yes, I am cautious, but not as cautious as you. American history is rife with examples of sea changes, without disturbing the fabric of the foundation.
We need to hold on to what's working but not be afraid to change that which is not.
Well damn Cred. You just affirmed a comment I made to hard sun - about you.
I agree, we aren't that far apart. Now I just have to work on you about supporting Warren's wealth tax idea.
As a note, I think she did well for herself at in the first Democrat primary debate - she let the others knock themselves out trying to get attention. She was firm in defending her positions, but she didn't join the fray on stage.
Warren may have trouble if this wealth tax is challenged in the court. But I am not against taxing Wall Street trading transactions and the like, the specifics I do not have.
I seem to always have the money to bail out the fat cats, now how about the rest of us?
I agree that Warren had a professional demeanor, avoiding childlike diversions as to who spoke the most fluent Spanish, focusing instead on preparation and policy ideas. She was the clear winner. Now I want her to compete with Biden and Bernie, I would have preferred that they both shared the stage with her last Wednesday.
Think of more than just a "Wealth Tax' court challenge Cred. Think of the very essence of its concept.
We, (the people), want something. We need money. Let's take it from the rich.
That is what a wealth tax boils down to. All of the justifications and rationalizations are just dressing.
Then consider that her proposed tax will tax the same asset year after year after year. How would you feel about paying an extra tax on the value of your new backyard pool year after year, even though that pool has not increased in its asset value or its use value to you?
As an example of that point I read one blurb that used Mark Zuckerburg as an example; If his fortune remained static, as in not increasing in value each year, then Warren's wealth tax would leave him broke in a couple of decades. Now, I doubt the reality of that example, but it does illustrate the point of your asset--the same asset--even when accruing no increased value being taxed over and over year after year.
And even beyond my perspective that a wealth tax just ain't right, you can look to the history of nations that have tried it. It just doesn't work. There are articles all over the place quoting the real-life statistic that in 1990 12 nations had a wealth tax and in 2018 only 3 have one. Three out of ever four nations that tried a wealth tax gave it up because it didn't work.
What is it about Warren's version that will make it a winner?
And here is the kicker. Folks vote with their wallet. So if a rich guy decides to live in Sweden, (yes, Sweden dumped its wealth tax), or Australia would be better than paying more taxes, then they would have to pay a 40% "exit" tax, (yes, give the government 40% of their wealth, (above the threshold)), just for the "privilege" to be able to leave.
GA, I tried to look into this wealth tax thing, and I consider it somewhat similar to an estate tax.
Yes, it has not proven to be successful elsewhere as the wealthy weasels find ways to move their money around to avoid the tax.
Whether it is right is another issue, I am concerned because it would to be impractical for all that I have read.
How many of these people are already not hiding income in off shore accounts, and we are not talking about just the well to do, but extreme wealth?
These guys are all for socializing losses, bailing out the banksters (Wall Street), yet are all for the principles of Capitalism when it is to their benefit.
Why are taxes based upon capital gains, the form of income used by the wealthy, less that the income tax that apply to working people? Why should it be less?
They have inordinate influence on the economy and government to get what they want most of the time, making them pay more is not an unreasonable concession. We all know that.
I with Warren in the need to do some leveling, but she may have to reconsider the tools that she proposes to use.
"Yes, it has not proven to be successful elsewhere as the wealthy weasels find ways to move their money around to avoid the tax."
It seems that this comment clearly states the problem. Those "wealthy weasels" (those with more than you have) have it and you want it. As they are despicable and evil you have the moral right to take it from them, and are disgusted and disappointed when they don't just hand it over.
Needless to say, it is not a philosophy I can agree with; if you want more build it yourself! You don't have the moral right to simply take it because you want it, no matter how much you demonize them or what loaded words you use to describe them.
But, they will pay their fair share without aversion. If I have to pay taxes, I will be damned if they are allowed to not pay theirs. So what does that have to do with a confiscatory attitude on my part?
I know that you don't agree with that philosophy, such is the nature of the "Mexican Standoff"
When you declare that their "fair share" is 10,000 times what yours is it kind of says it all.
While I don't like the idea of a graduated income tax, or even one based on a percentage of what is earned, I recognize that both are necessary if we are to have a country. That isn't the problem.
What IS the problem (IMO) is that every time we want something new we simply soak the rich. There is no "This is a neat thing we would like to have, so let's pool our resources and buy it", but rather "I want it but don't want to pay for it so will force a tiny fraction to the country to buy it for everybody". And that concept has no connection to the morality I grew up with. Demonizing the rich, calling them "wealthy weasels" and declaring that it is they that are unethical as we dig into their pocketbook doesn't change that. It can only assuage a conscience that doesn't really care what we do...as long as we get the goodies we want. Bottom line is that is simply greed, with the only check on it being the ability of the rich to protect themselves from the rest of us.
I know that you don't like the idea of a progressive Income Tax in place since 1913, that is an American Gothic attitude.
Who is to say that these people pay anything? Why should they when they can conceal their income?
I have to pay more based on my income than someone else earning less, that is the way the cookie crumbles. I am not whining about it.
I understand your argument but disagree, all the same
I pay more than the poor as well (even though I have very little coming in), and I don't gripe about it.
In my county the roads are kept in good shape - very good shape compared to surrounding counties. And we pay for that. I don't mind - I like good roads and feel they are good for the county. But I get something for it! It doesn't go to pay debts people ran up but don't want to pay, it doesn't go to support people who would rather sit at home than find a useful skill to sell. It doesn't go to give free health care and food stamps to an illegal alien and it doesn't go to buy a new museum for Kansas City, halfway across the country that I will never see. I get something for my county taxes.
But federal taxes? Half of what I am charged to live here goes to someone else for their personal use and does absolutely nothing for me. That, plain and simple, is unacceptable. Particularly when I see people that truly need help but can't get anything because it is already gone to buy votes with. Worse, it never stops - there is always another entitlement to give away, another reason to simply give money away and tighten the chains we've already put on the poor. Whether from rich or middle class, it remains that we're doing immense damage to our country with virtually unlimited giveaways.
If you were one of those wealthy weasels is there any tax rate that you might consider somewhat sorta kinda maybe a rationalization for trying to protect some of your income?
As a progressive you might be fine with complete and full wealth declaration at a 70% tax rate, but if it was 80% or 90% would you do anything at all, (like hire a good tax accountant and tax lawyer), to minimize your losses?
If you were that wealthy weasel and paid $1.7 billion actual dollars in tax payments, would you feel a little chaffed by the folks that paid no taxes, (or to be generous let's include those that paid up to $5000 in taxes), claiming you aren't paying your fair share, or that you are a cheating wealthy weasel because you follow the tax laws?
Would you be thinking something like . . . $1.7 Billion vs. $5000, yep, I think I paid my fair share?
And when those folks came knocking demanding even more, would you just gladly say okay, take what you want?
I am not intending to defend wealth Cred, it shouldn't need defending. What I am doing is criticizing the perspective that it is right to take it from them because they have it and I don't.
GA, why not protect all their income and not pay at all, what is preventing them from scurrying away the bulk of their income?
The question is are they really FOLLOWING the the tax laws? That is all that I ask, no loop holes or special privileges.
With all the loopholes and workarounds, I question whether these people are even pay what the law requires?
If I were earning $50B a year, why would I chafe? I pay a portion of my fat while others cut into means of livelyhood.
That is just one aspect of my argument for the leveling.
"The question is are they really FOLLOWING the the tax laws? That is all that I ask, no loop holes or special privileges."
That's all fine and good...except that you keep changing the tax laws to get more. And building in loopholes to get the rich to pay for something that is hidden and the public doesn't realize. Never forget that the large majority of these hated "loopholes" are designed to convince a company to do what the politician wants them to do. Whether to open a headquarters in this city rather than that one or to build in an inner city or even hire the disabled - loopholes are there for a political reason. Personally I hate them and would make a no-deduction tax on everyone. No "rebates" of what was never paid, no loopholes for any reason. Whether we want to give it away or buy something but not let on we're doing it, no loopholes. Make the payments right out in the open for all to see.
"That is just one aspect of my argument for the leveling."
And there is the crux, isn't it? You will take and take and take...until there ARE no rich - until it is all "level". And call it "right" and "moral" while you do so.
To answer your question, I think their researchers have done their homework.
45 million Americans have some form of Student Loan Debt. so they are going after those 45 million votes with the rhetoric of wiping it away.
A shift in the African American population is occuring, especially amongst those below the age of 40 who have have well paying jobs. Trump was at 8% when elected, he is at 15% now, its not much, but the Democrats want to lock in that 37 million voting block and so this election they will use talk of 'reparations' to try and do so.
Today the country seems to be dividing into two general camps:
Those who want to remain as free and self-sufficient as possible, who believe in America 1st, those who take control and responsibility for their lives and look to family or the church for what support they need.
And those wanting the government to provide and control almost every aspect of life. To be cared for and protected by the government, even at the cost of most of their freedoms and income.
I would imagine there are many millions of former college students with massive amounts of debt, makes me wonder if this wasn't planned many years ago. Get tens of millions of Americans buried in debt, and then offer them a way out... all they have to do is sell out the sovereignty of the Nation and give up most of their freedoms supporting the 'Democratic Socialism' wave and their debts will be expunged.
"A shift in the African American population is occuring, especially amongst those below the age of 40 who have have well paying jobs."
Ken, can you provide a source for this?
Ken, our history's proof of the probable truth of your comment is almost depressing.
I do understand the purpose of these election platforms and positions, but I think I was looking at it too broadly as a total package. I don't think I view myself as part of any "faction," so maybe the more narrow view, the reality of segments of each faction being attracted by the individual promises, (as you point out)--regardless of what those promises entail--is the way I should think about it.
Maybe my generation is the generation of dinosaurs and the Gen X'rs and forward generations of voters are willing to make the trade of responsibility for security.
If, as you guys are fretting and postulatung, people voted based on how much free stuff they are promised, Andrew Yang would be wildly popular right now.
Yang, that's the guy with the VAT tax that I named as Ling. Shows how much attention I was paying doesn't it?
But yes, I am "fretting" about the menu of "free stuff" that the candidates are offering.
45 million people with Student Loan Debt. if even 10% of them are willing to vote on the chance that they will be relieved of those debts thats 4.5 million votes on that one issue that is gained.
That is not a hard thing to imagine at all... especially when you hear about fools who have amassed $400,000 - $500,000 in Student Loan Debt.
Its no different than the people who vote on the issue of abortion above all else. Those voting blocks are locked in, however many million there may be on either side of the issue.
Give them credit for identifying this new voting block and trying to secure their votes... and I have to say, when they talk about how we took on trillions in debt to bail out the banks in 2008... not that these kids suffered because of it, it was the people working or in retirement that lost the value of their homes or stocks that suffered... its an easy sell to many.
Indeed this will be the plan, and this is how they secure enough votes.
They have a certain percentage of voters who are fully anti-Trump and would vote for Stalin himself to remove Trump if necessary.
Notice how the focus is being put on Trump the person... very little is being put on how and why we got Trump.
The opposition doesn't care, as they are going to follow their agendas regardless... the factions these politicians cater to want trade agreements that don't serve the American people's best interests, they want open borders, they want endless wars... corporations, foreign nations, and special interests hold sway in D.C. not the American voter.
The opposition has to offer something other than "not Trump", to gain the votes necessary of those Americans who are not buying into the anti-Trump hysteria.
College Debt is one good way of targeting a large number of voters who may otherwise be inclined not to vote, or not vote Democrat.
You're right - greed is alive and well in our country, and using it to gain votes is a good way of getting elected. As long as you can hand out more and more "freebies" (things we want but paid for by someone else) greed ensures you will gain votes. Responsibility for self and the decisions/actions we make is a dying philosophy; get someone else to provide is the name of the game today.
Its about the numbers.
The average student debt is roughly $30k with over 600,000 having over $200k in debt and another 1.5 million having more than $100k. That's over 2 million people with a six figure school debt.
Florida has 2.2 million voters with Student Debt. How many votes are needed to swing that State?
Texas has 2.9 million, Ohio has 1.7 million, how many does it take to turn these states?
I appreciate a very specific question. Calls for a specific opinion. I feel the majority of citizens will not be receptive to all these new taxes that most of the candidates speak of... Taxes are a dirty word to many. Plus it would stand to common sense some voter would have to take into consideration how the current Trump tax cuts are working for them, making their lives better. The economy is humming, many attributes to tax cuts to the increase in jobs, as well as a rising wage in some incidences.
Statistics show Trump created six million jobs in his couple years in office. He broke records in regards to unemployment for women, black American/s as well as Latinos. Yes, candidates made claims that "yes there is a job, but some still are working multiple jobs". These statements sound like political hype to me... Six million more jobs, six million more people working. Anyway, you look at it, this is wonderful progress. Will this economic success pull in non-extreme voter's to vote for Trump? Common sense tells me, yes it might. Plus, currently, many citizens are questioning how our tax dollars are being spent on things they find destructive in some and non-beneficial to the country. Voter polls show immigration is on voters minds, some have strong feelings in regard to spending our tax dollars on illegal immigrants. Will these citizens be obliged to do away with Trump's tax plan, a plan that spells success for many? One other consideration and I feel it is what will ultimately sink the Dem's in this election. They are not taking into account many find far left ideology appalling.
And this bunch take the cake with all their giveaways. And yes they certainly would have to raise taxes to pay for all that free stuff. And yes common sense people can see through all the crazy... To answer the question. Yeah, the alarm is being heard loud and clear. But unfortunately, the Dem's that are campaigning just aren't hearing it.
Are there any non-extreme voters who are not already so alarmed by the current White House that tax increases are the last thing on their minds?
I think you have that mixed up, it is only the extreme left voters, and admittedly the few fools who watch CNN and think its news rather than the fabrications and opinions that it so obviously is, that are alarmed.
I think the majority of Americans are fine, they don't pay much attention to politics except when it hits their wallets or war breaks out, and they don't have the time to waste watching CNN... life is to short for their garbage or anything else like it.
Is that what you think Don? Your question suggests it is.
Is it your perception that the Democrat candidates' platforms don't matter because non-extreme voters don't care as long as Pres. Trump is defeated?
Not speaking for Don, but I would say voters who are okay with Trump as president are, by definition,extreme. And I would also say that for the rest of us, getting Trump out of office is a higher priority than pretty much anything else. That doesn't mean we "don't care" about the policies of the candidates, but that, in the end, any of them will be better than Trump.
I'm back. Thank you, Randy
Extreme means furthest from the center or a given point; outermost.
Half the country or more approves of the job he is doing, hence, it is impossible that half, or close to, or more than, is the extreme.
That I would say is an example of an extreme position, being willing to accept anyone else as President, not even knowing who, or what the ramifications would be.... I don't think a large portion of the country thinks the same way, not even a quarter of it.
In my book, that is an absurd position. Not supported by facts. The economy is still going strong, he kept us out of very harmful trade deals (to American workers) and re-negotiated others... I would go on, but I doubt such facts interest you.
Yes, anyone would be better than the cretin...
I don't care how good the economy is, a lying, corrupt, hateful, disgusting POS will never earn my vote. Character matters to me. I don't expect perfection but Trump doesn't meet the minimum standards for dog catcher much less POTUS.
You may not, and you may believe he is all the things you claim him to be.
But 50% of America (more or less, I'm not going to belabor the matter) doesn't agree with any of what you believe.
And for 50% or more of Americans, it IS all about the economy, their economy, their safety, their ability to care for themselves or their family.
Yes, there is a portion of America that is about politics above wellbeing & economy, but thankfully they are not the majority.
No problem, Pretty! Glad to see you back.
That thought is hard to reconcile PretyPanther. You say you care about policies, but only if the candidate can beat Trump.
That seems similar to the rationalization we heard from Trump voters on this forum.
Great to see you back.
Donald Trump LOSING to ALL Major Democratic Candidates and that can't be a surprise to anyone **** People aren't quite as dumb as Donald thinks and they won't fall for his BS a second time around: Donald Trump needs an intervention from SATAN to evade prison GA, and if he gets it as a "Stay of Execution", he and his Communist Russian Loving Republican Comrades will be CLOBBERED once again in 2020:
"Trump erupts after polls say he would lose to every major Democrat in 2020: ‘They don’t even exist’"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 55346.html
GA, if a candidate came along who is exactly like Trump in temperament and character, but perfectly matched my policy preferences on every issue, that candidate would be unacceptable.
I don't care what your policies are, if you're a racist, misogynist, lying, corrupt, disgusting POS, you won't earn my vote.
But, but, but ... the topic wasn't about Trump. He was only brought into it by someone using the opportunity to Trump-bash in a non-Trump thread.
Think about what you are saying Prettypanther, is it any different than the Trump-voters' rationalizations regarding their Hillary choice?
You are following the same play but with a different name.
I am going to channel Forrest now . . . and that's all I have to say about that.
But I will gladly continue the discussion concerning the topic of the OP.
GA, read your last post, you were the one who brought up the subject of "Democratic Candidates" and I just informed readers that Clowny McTrump is LOSING to ALL the Major Democratic Presidential Candidates and that can't be a surprise to anyone:
Furthermore, Trump "BASHES" himself daily, I merely repeat his INSANITY: Furthermore, Progressive Democrats will indeed RAISE Taxes when they gain complete power in 2020, but those taxes will be RAISED ONLY for filthy rich Wall Streeters which will finaly ease the extreme cumbersome burden on workers and senior citizens:
I took your advice Jake and went back to look at my "last post." And you are right, it was about "Democrat candidates," not about Trump.
The "opportunity" you took was to ignore the topic, (or the point of my last post), and insert a Trump-bashing comment. As usual Jake, you remain true to form. There is no political topic that you cannot find a way to insert Trump into.
The question wasn't about "losing to," it was about Democrat candidate proposals.
Do you have a non-Trump related thought on that topic Jake?
Yes, I don't like Trump, but I want more than just a marginal improvement over him as a replacement. That is why middlers in the Democratic race won't do.
To win, our candidates have to sell progressive ideas and policies and it is not sufficient to be just anyone other than Trump, while it is a good start.
Faced with two issues: 1. a possible tax increase by a future Democratic administration or 2. a certain continued and unprecedented assault by the current administration on the country's democratic systems and the Constitution (including the obliteration of Congressional oversight powers); I think stopping 2 is the higher priority, because it represents an existential threat to democracy.
And that isn't "Trump-bashing". The current administration's attack on the country's democratic processes is unprecedented and a matter of public record.
So the degree to which people will be alarmed by 1, is likely to be proportionate to the degree they recognize, understand and/or care about 2.
Personally, I'd rather be complaining about an administration that proposes raising taxes, than an administration that has effectively stopped my Representative asking questions in Congress on my behalf.
Taxation without representation is a hard no from me.
Don you think the democratic system is under attack, by Trump.
Plenty of voters who put him in office felt it was under attack by Obama who used Executive Orders to get around Congress, or when he chose to bypass Congress and join the Paris Accord, etc. etc.
Obama did the same things or worse when it comes to bypassing Congress AND the Law.
And I daresay almost all voters think D.C. in general is corrupt and that it does not serve their interests, but rather the interests of Lobbyists who serve corporations, foreign nations, special (extreme) interests, just about everything BUT the American people, the average guy and gal.
Making Trump's fight against the 'establishment' a popular one. Whether you see it as Democracy under attack or not isn't really relevant, its what the voters believe that matters.
"Plenty of voters who put him in office felt it was under attack by Obama who used Executive Orders to get around Congress, or when he chose to bypass Congress and join the Paris Accord, etc. etc.
I don't remember the last administration effectively issuing a blanket ban on administration officials complying with Congressional subpoenas or giving testimony. When did that happen? I don't remember a Special Counsel providing evidence that demonstrated the president deliberately and knowingly tried to obstruct justice. When did that happen? I don't remember a Department of the last administration refusing to provide tax returns to Congress even though the law explicitly requires them to. When did that happen? And those are just the highlights.
When you are able to provide evidence of the last administration doing anything even remotely close to what the current administration is doing, I might consider your argument valid.
Non-extreme voters, as a rule, are people that don't lean one way or the other. They as a rule just vote by using common sense. It's your perspective that the "lot of them" are in some respect alarmed at the current White House. I consider myself a non-extreme voter. I am not at odds with the White House. In fact, I feel Trump is doing a good job as president. What scares me is that the that are Dems leaning so far left. I am very much at odds with the scary agenda's the Dem's are presenting.
Yes - polls indicate nearly half the country are happy. ergo it would seem that they are not "alarmed" at all.
Yes, they will alarm conservatives and some moderates. It is the mature of conservatives and some moderates to be alarmed by pretty much anything that would disrupt the status quo.
My reaction? shrug What's new?
Death panels didn't happen, no one pulled the plug on grandma, gay marriage didn't destroy the institution of marriage, and rich people won't take their billions and run.
On the other hand, we have children in cages at the border, a President whose word is not trusted by our allies, another trickle-down tax cut, and and the most corrupt administration in recent history.
Biden's climate change plan is not nearly as scary as that.
Hold on a minute, back up a bit PrettyPanther. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been, or maybe folks are reading what they expect to hear, instead of what I am saying, but . . . I didn't mean the question as a partisan jab.
Seriously speaking, from what I have heard, almost every Democrat candidate is proposing a massive tax increase. That increase may be the pablum of "tax the rich" or it may be a new proposal, like; Beto's "war tax" or Warren's "wealth tax," but regardless of the specifics, my thought was to question whether all these "new tax" proposals will appeal to any but the factions of the Progressive Left?
For instance; you may be fine with Warren's wealth tax, but how do you fel about Beto's "war tax"?
Or, with the criticism of Pres. Trump's trillions of dollars deficit caused by his tax cut legislation, how do you feel about Biden's proposal to keep that "trillions of dollars" of deficit - but caused by Green New Deal expenditures instead of tax cuts for the wealthy?
My point isn't to pick at the candidates, (although I would gladly do so), but to question whether you think the general public voter will be receptive to all these new taxes.
I think that about half the country will be okay with increased taxes on the wealthy.I also think most voters realize these plans are unlikely to be enacted wholly as proposed.
Like you, I think the election will be less about specific plans and more about the direction we would like to take our nation.
Does that answer your question?
We disagree with the part about the country accepting these new tax increase proposals. I think it is much less than half. I think it is only the progressive factions of Democrat supporters that will support the proposed tax increases. But, that is only my opinion, not a researched determination.
However, I do agree with you that the majority of voters do realize all these campaign promises are pie-in-the-sky proposals made solely to garner votes--not seriously considered options.
You have almost answered the OP's question, at least relative to your perspective, but what about the Independent voter, do you think these tax plans will appeal to them?
Well...I think the independent voter is pretty rare. I recall seeing a study that revealed only about 10% of registered independents actually split their votes among more than one party. Most vote almost exclusively Democrat or exclusively Republican. This is corroborated by my personal exposure to friends who are "independent." They aren't really. I'm not wedded to this idea, as I haven't gone beyond the pointsI have just shared to know for sure.
So, I don't put much stock.in this idea that candidates must be centrist to be electable.
Gus. any reasonably thinking person wouldn't be receptive to the new taxes. Such Americans strongly, even vehemently assert that they have been taxed enough. We have far too many inane social & welfare programs which eat up tax dollars. It is the social & welfare systems which are somewhat accountable for the deficit we have now. The government waste far too much money. I suggest cutting taxes by reducing social & welfare programs 85-95%. The Democratic Party or as it is currently known as the Leftist Party has gone completely amok. We don't need more taxes but less taxes. Eliminate social, welfare, & other useless programs. Let me add something else, streamline local, state, & federal civil service. Most of civil service jobs are useless anywhere. Let's privatize civil service except for purely essential services. My take on the issue Gus.
". . . and this too shall pass"
Eastern Monarch, Fitzgerald, Abraham Lincoln
But in that passing, from generation to generation, from ancients to moderns, there are traditions and prescriptions that have proven their worth in the governing of societies.
The value in Federalism is one, and the value of governance by the ascent of the people is another. Those have proven to be beneficially unchangeable.
Oh, I didn't know anyone proposed changing how we combine a general government with regional governments into a single political system or how we govern by the ascent of the people. I don't think it's all that.
Those were just examples of the concepts hard sun, not specific applications.
Oh, I thought you were expanding upon your statement made to Credence. That is to what I was replying.
"You want change, I want change. But I want change that doesn't ignore the wisdom of the traditions and prescriptions that got us this far. I am not so confident you are as cautious."
Simply put, Cred is open to more radical change than I am.
He and I have discussed multiple issues regarding our difference in degrees and direction, and even though I have found him to also have a purple lean, the blue progressive in his purple is stronger than in mine.
From our past conversations, I bet I could even get him to agree that he supports the foundation traditions and prescriptions that I speak of, if he thought of them as that, instead of the topical traditions like male dominance and the power of old white men with money ones he seems to automatically jump to.
But . . . I am sure he will jump in and set me straight if that thought is wrong. ;-)
Okay...the concept was just a straw man. I just like to make sense out of what I'm reading and have a bit of fun. Plus I read one of those understanding debate strategy articles a few weeks ago. Carry on, lol.
Yes, I agree to a desire to maintain the "foundation", but in a broad sense.
But there need not be a conflict regarding restraining the unelected acquisition of power and influence by those of means, and maintaining the foundation.
How about a specific example of what you consider a "foundation", what you may consider a foundation would not be looked upon in the same way by myself?
I am out on a limb here
For many, who would dare not admit it, white supremacy is an unspoken foundation and prescription of this nation of the sort that must not be violated. Not to pull the race card, one just have to look around them. So, let's continue to work to make the playing level and provide fewer non merit structural advantages to certain people to the disadvantage of others.
From our exchanges, that the red mix in my blue may well be imperceptible.
Isn't that who is running things, GA, when we are honest as to how this society functions, old white men with money? No point in avoiding the obvious, so if the shoe fits......
While it may be a fool's errand the eliminate this timeless situation, taking a pick ax to have a whack at this edifice is a start and I will support anyone willing to help me. But, I am not about bashing for its own sake (See "Message to and from Black America" part 1 and 2) providing some explanation of why I see things as I do.
I don't want to spook anyone or be unreasonable.
"Isn't that who is running things, GA, when we are honest as to how this society functions, old white men with money? "
You mean old white men like Nancy Pelosi? Hillary Clinton? Elisabeth Warren? The new group of Democrats who showed up in women's solidarity the first day?
Or were you referring to old white men that control from the sidelines, behind the curtain, like Oprah Winfrey?
The days of control by old white men are long gone - it must be shared by many others.
Let's not confuse things, I look at the vast majority not to cherry pick few prominent celebrities conservatives trot out as an example to disprove my point.
I also look at the Kennedy and Roosevelt dynasties as examples of people who worked to empower the common citizen.
I'm very undecided about the 2020 Presidential election right now. I've only watched some soundbites of the two debates, and the talking head "who won" nonsense is not helpful at all. I must do more legwork.
One thing I do know is that I don't think a candidate who makes race a focal point of their campaign is good for the nation. Of course, we cannot deny that race issues exist, but running on, "at least I'm not an old white guy" is not going to cut it. CNN makes Harris sound like that candidate, whether that's what she is or not, and IMO, that's unhelpful to her. I think Obama understood all this, and I venture to guess that he understood that such a stance would not be good for American race relations.
Indeed, the days of only old white men in control are long gone, and it's time for other candidates to step up with real ideas...before they get beat by another old white guy. Personally, I don't care if you're green, if you are the best human for the job, and I think ANY Dem will lose to Trump if they don't understand that this is how he or she will be judged...not on gender or skin color.
I think you are right about Biden being his strongest opponent - if he makes the right VP choice, but my gut is telling me not to discount Harris' possibility of beating Trump.
It seems the primary is all about the progressive left and that isn't a bad thing in the primary race, but I think it will be a negative for many independent voters in the general election.
Someone suggested a Biden/Harris ticket. I think that would be the best chance for the Democrats. I think even a Biden/Warren ticket could succeed, but I don't see Warren taking the second chair.
Oh hell, Cred. You are dragging me into the deep end of the pool on this one.
This is going to get wordy, and probably boring as hell, but apparently, I have been less than clear about what I mean when I speak of the concept of foundational tradition and prescription because your "white supremacy" example isn't an example of what I mean.
hard sun quipped about debate strategy but I prefer discussions, and the most primary discussion strategy is to make sure the point of the discussion is mutually understood. So . . .
Your example is still not foundational, it is topical. The existence of matriarchical societies illustrates that. The fact of the strides women have made in reaching new levels of power and influence also supports the topical basis of your example.
I am speaking of examples like the time-proven prescription of a Republican, (not the party, but a republic of entities), form of representative governance as being the most beneficial for its citizens, and the election of those representatives by the vote of the citizens as the tradition.
Before you offer a 'Duh!' let me explain what I see as attacks on those prescriptions and traditions.
I think the modern trend demanding the abolishment of the Electoral College is an assault on our Republican form of government. Folks no longer want to view our nation as a Republic of states but as a nation of one citizen mass. It is that thought, not just the particular issue of the EC that I see as an assault on a proven prescription.
I see the trending demand for popular-vote presidential elections as an assault on our tradition of electing our representatives.
Hold on now . . that isn't as contradictory as it sounds if you remember that my understanding of our Constitution and Republican form of government is that it is the individual masses of citizens of each state that elect our president, not the single mass of the nation's citizens.
Imagine a most extreme scenario of continuing such a trend: We continue the trend of decision by popular vote. Everyone has a phone and internet access so we no longer need elected representatives, We just need a Senate of Question Publishers to put the questions for decision to the citizens and a House of Tabulators to tally the yeas or nays coming in from that one giant mass of citizens. Think of it as an upside-down 2084 version of 1984.
Gone is the possibility of the wisdom of Representatives moderating the emotions of the masses, and gone is the concept of a Republic.
Regardless of whether you agree with my perspective of the threats, I hope you can see the concepts of tradition and prescription I have been speaking of.
Then we can talk about the problem of those "old white men with money" thing.
"I think the modern trend demanding the abolishment of the Electoral College is an assault on our Republican form of government. Folks no longer want to view our nation as a Republic of states but as a nation of one citizen mass. It is that thought, not just the particular issue of the EC that I see as an assault on a proven prescription."
This matter seems to be of great concern to you.
But I am not among those wishing to see the Electoral College abolished for these reasons:
1. It takes a constitutional convention to change it and will never garner the majority needed to pass.
2. I want to be fair to Wyoming and all the backwater smaller states. The founders intended that selection of the President while being determined primarily by the will of majority take into account concurrence from various sections of the nation, an affirmation that is both broad as well as deep. I can respect that.
3. we on the left are just upset because of the instances of the Electoral College taking precedence over the popular vote use to happen with the frequency of a Solar eclipse is now showing up at too many election cycles, why?
But, I understand the reason for it and reluctantly will allow it to continue as the founder's compromise with the voices of sparsely populated regions.
But it is just as important that those representatives remain accountable to, listen and be responsive to the will of the masses, or what they refer to as the rabble, that put them in power. That is the reason I support direct election of Senators and resist any trend to reverse it.
Tempering the boiling cauldron does not mean putting it on ice.
I can't take much more of this agreement stuff Cred. Especially when I have to agree with your agreement.
I will jump over to the Warren wealth tax comments, I am sure we won't agree there.
Seems to me that it (EC vote does not equate with popular vote) is happening because of the increasing polarization of metropolitan vs rural philosophies.
But that does not, to me, seem to be a reason to deny those rural people their philosophy of self regulation and self responsibility. Rather, it is a solid reason to keep the EC; should city dwellers wish to build an entitlement state, a nanny state with as near government control as they can, let them do so...within their borders.
Personally I predict an uprising of sorts as states like California, Oregon and even Texas come up against a mass of rural people being disenfranchised in their state by the cities; cities with a very much different philosophy than those living outside the city.
can't say that I disagree with all of your points.
But electing the President is a national activity and while I am for making some concession to a declining demographic, it still declines all the same and time will tell if there remain any voices from this rural faction that you speak of.
It is a dying demographic, Wilderness. It's American Gothic, it is gone.
It happens in Colorado, Denver metro, the front range and its overwhelming electorate has change the nature of a once rural oriented state to one that is now True-blue. The eastern plains counties tried to create their own state in response, but no dice. And you can bet that this trend will not be isolated in nature regarding it occurrence in other states. hopefully, Texas is next.
Does it throw off the balance of a republic if those without much don't try to get whatever they can? It seems you could say this just as well as you could say those poor rich fellows may move out of the republic if they're taxed too much. Those with the means will sure do whatever it takes to hold onto what they have..pay less taxes, etc. So, why shouldn't everyone try to get what they can from the government, or whatever sources they can tap? Why should poor folks be convinced that it's somehow immoral to ask for things?
People who don't contribute at all have a funny way of winding up on the bottom no matter how it plays out.
Some of us are happy no matter our financial situation, but that doesn't mean we should do the rich folks jobs for them. They'll be okay. I do me and let them folks do them. However the government structures the game is not very much up to me anyway. I just play my role.
Is a gun an acceptable method of "asking" for more? Keep in mind that is exactly what the IRS will do if "asking" produces a law saying it's OK to take whatever they wish from the rich. They do it now (don't pay your taxes and see just how long you remain free, and if a gun is required to make sure you don't then a gun will be used).
Given that, is there a real difference between the thief that breaks into your home or the mugger on the street and those that "ask" for what you've accumulated so they can have a better lifestyle? Outside of simply having a lot of strength on their side, that is...and we all know that "might makes right".
To answer your question. I don't know. Guns---or the threat of violence/incarceration backed up by the threat of force-- are ultimately the enforcer of any law, financial or not. So, if we answer no, we may not have any society to speak of. You kind of answered that yourself though. Might makes right. I sure am not going to "fight" for the other side.
However, I don't think people often need to take up arms, or even venture outside of the law, in order to do what is right by them and theirs. The greatest trick the rich pull is to get the poor to fight for them. It ain't me.
We can make thief analogies all day long...I kinda feel robbed when I pay a utility maintenance bill even when I didn't use said utility. I kinda felt robbed when a court system unduly took thousands of my hard-eared dollars. Forgive me for not feeling bad about a billionaire paying 30% on passive income. It's all relative and an individual's morality is up to well, that individual.
Seems to me the big difference is the intended use of that wealth. One goes (primarily) to benefit the nation and all the people in it. Police, fire fighters, military, roads, dams, etc.
The other use is for specific individuals. One votes to forgive freely entered into college loans...so that they will benefit from it, and at someone else's expense. The nation does not benefit and neither does the general population. Only an individual, or a specific few individuals.
And, IMO, that makes it wrong. We will never agree 100% on how taxes should be spent - a simple fact of life - but when money is taken from one to benefit individuals rather than the country it no longer classifies as a tax, but as theft. Again, IMO - an opinion that nevertheless can see a place for limited government charity. Just not the wholesale "freebie" entitlement philosophy we are developing.
"The other use is for specific individuals. One votes to forgive freely entered into college loans...so that they will benefit from it, and at someone else's expense. The nation does not benefit and neither does the general population. Only an individual, or a specific few individuals."
I don't entirely disagree with your point here, but I do disagree with the analogy. I think the benefits of student loan forgiveness, both financially and culturally, would be reaped by most all of America.
W"e will never agree 100% on how taxes should be spent - a simple fact of life - but when money is taken from one to benefit individuals rather than the country it no longer classifies as a tax, but as theft."
Our disagreement about the student loan issue is just one example of how we could never even all agree on what benefits individuals rather than the country...further blurring that fine line between taxation and what you call theft.
Moreover, I think one big way the American middle class is kept from experiencing the standard of living we could otherwise achieve is this attitude that using the system is somehow wrong. To me doing anything but is being a pushover, and I think many wealthy people agree on this..and thus they stay wealthy. There's nothing wrong with contributing and fighting for ways to get the most out of one's contributions. In fact, I think it's required for a healthy balance. As I stated before, I think those that don't contribute have a sort of Darwinian way of falling by the wayside.
"I think the benefits of student loan forgiveness, both financially and culturally, would be reaped by most all of America."
Can you elucidate? I see loans forgiven...for others but not for me. No financial or cultural benefit for country or me.
I see loans forgiven, furthering an entitlement philosophy that is destroying the work ethic in the country. No financial or cultural benefit for country or me.
I see loans forgiven, yet the cost must be borne by someone...including me as my taxes will pay for it. No financial or cultural benefit for country or me.
I see loans forgiven, encouraging the nanny state rather than self-responsibility. No financial or cultural benefit for country or me.
What are you seeing that will benefit anyone at all that does not have one of the forgiven loans? Financially OR culturally, what is the benefit to those people that will pick up the tab (very often after paying for their own education already)?
Those who already paid will not be hurt by those not paying other than maybe hurting their sense of fairness..and hey, who wants to keep score? I bet I could score pretty big at that game. And, that's coming from someone who has paid a sizable chunk. Besides, there's no reason why YOUR taxes should have to pay for it. That's what the billionaires are for and eliminating waste, etc.
There are a ton of resources on the macroeconomic benefits of student loan forgiveness.
"Wiping away the $1.4 trillion in outstanding loan debt for the 44 million Americans who carry it could boost GDP by between $86 billion and $108 billion per year, on average for the 10 years following the debt cancellation, according to a report published by the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. Getting rid of the debt would also lower the average unemployment rate by 0.22 to 0.36 percentage over 10 years and could add between 1.2 million and 1.5 million jobs per year, it found.
“That is a dollar for dollar bump up in their net worth,” said Stephanie Kelton, a professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University and one of the authors of the report. In addition to becoming wealthier, these borrowers would have more disposable income to spend on houses, cars, vacations and other goods, which could fuel job growth."
https://www.marketwatch/story/canceling … 2018-02-07
Furthermore, I see unburdening millions of Americans of crippling debt as a work incentive. Right now, many workers are on income based payment programs, or they would go bankrupt. That kind of acts as a disincentive to make more cash.
Edit: Just an aside..the GI Bill didn't even come through for me because of a clerical error. I just keep moving forward and get what I can. Such is life.
"Those who already paid will not be hurt by those not paying other than maybe hurting their sense of fairness"
Who do you think is going to pay those debts? The answer, of course, is the taxpayer - the taxpayer who will absolutely be hurt by paying someone else's debt! You may pretend that it will be only those evil rich people, but the truth is that it will be the middle class, just as it is for everything else. But even if it were limited to the rich, so what? It just means that the rich will be hurt. There is no change that someone gets hurt because borrowers don't want to pay for what they got.
How does not paying a debt increase GDP? Do we just pretend that the money comes from outer space? Of course it won't improve GDP - that money could be spent by the taxpayer (that pays the bill) buying products but instead will be used to pay the debt. It's also impossible to lower unemployment rates by not paying debts; that the money will be spent from the tax base rather than the individual who made the loan does not change a single thing when it comes to employment.
Yes, their net worth will go up. And the net worth of others will go down. And yes, the borrowers will have more money to spend...while others will have less. Net change: zero. It doesn't fuel job growth, for God's sake, simply by taking from one to give to another!
"Unburdening" millions of Americans is a work incentive? About as much as paying off my mortgage: should we forgive all mortgages as well? And car loans and credit card loans? By your reasoning GDP will go through the roof and everyone will be rich!
I'm sorry, Hard Sun, but you're trying to claim a gain for everyone by merely shifting money around; by reducing what one has to get that gain by someone else. You cannot create wealth (or jobs) that way. Wealth (and jobs) can be created, but not by merely taking from the one that earned their wealth and giving it to another.
I already answered most of your questions. One more point..increasing labor hours is one way to increase GDP. Also, how is removing debt, which isn't going to be paid, simply moving money around? It's not. The vast majority of that "money" is bad debt, which IS in outer space!
I saw first hand what happens to that in the 2007 financial crisis when I managed an AIG branch. That is hedge fund money basically, not something that's going to boost our economy. Student Loan forgiveness is low-hanging economic stimulus package, that will likely happen at least to a large extent, and not too far out IMO.
We can argue all day, with my providing the evidence of why its good for the economy to unsaddle Americans of crippling debt, but you've already made up your mind. The money in
the hands of people that spend it, kinda works well for an economy.
I don't think you're not changing my mind one bit either.
You misunderstand my point hard son, and that you describe them as "poor rich folks" indicates the difference in our perspectives is the reason for that misunderstanding.
I wasn't exactly responding to you GA, and that's why I didn't quote you. Your analysis simply inspired another track of thought. Apparently, it's one you don't align yourself with? It wasn't about trying to understand your point...and maybe that indicates the reason for that misunderstanding . I haven't even begun to look into Warren's wealth tax.
Have another martini and maybe bask in the glory of your inspirational abilites ..oh and it's "poor rich fellows."
Inspirational abilities? Since we appear to be back to square one, that was sarcasm, right?
No, it wasn't entirely sarcastic. However, part of the meaning is that the discussion is not always a struggle to understand your point of view and create an agreement or argument from it. Sometimes people just kind of have their own tangents that stem from a discussion. In this case, your discussion was an inspiration, but I honestly did not care about getting your specific point that I "missed." I wasn't attempting to agree or disagree with you at all.
Okay, I got it. Tangent discussions are a normal part of these forums.
Tangent discussions that start new lines of thought based on the original discussion of Democrat economic plans. Yes, it happens everywhere, and is a healthy part of democracy, lol.
Edit..no worries GA I'll keep out of the professor is in threads from here forward.
I like the idea one of the candidates proposed in offering a single payer option for those that want it. Those that want to remain with private insurance can do so. Thus, it'll be easier to change fully or go back should the new system not work. It should keep the market competitive also.
As for tax increases, even the rich believe their tax rate should be higher. Many know the latest tax cut raised deficits while giving much of the benefit to the wealthiest Americans.
What both parties need is to pass a balanced budget Amendment. One that only allows the government to spend the amount they brought in in taxes the previous year, minus a certain amount that pays down the debt. It seems neither party buys into that philosophy now, at least since Bill Clinton was in charge.
You mean a tiny handful of rich folks support higher taxes, not the group as a whole or even a majority of them.
But yes - we desperately need a balanced budget amendment. Something no politician in Washington will ever support for it would severely limit their ability to buy votes.
I suppose we'll find out if the wealthy cheat on their taxes when we see Trump's taxes. This should be a good example..
I think if we did get a look at Trump's taxes we would be very upset with all the loopholes in our system. I think his accountants would take advantage of any and all loopholes. However, my common sense makes me think he has not broken any of our tax laws. Why, because the IRS would have been for the past two years making sure he didn't. They sure would look ridiculous if Trump had broken any tax laws and they did not hold him accountable. Trump stated he has been under audit every year for many years. But one never knows... Yes, having a look at any billionaires tax records would be interesting.
Only if you have a room full of accountants and all the supporting documentation to go over. Without that the actual tax forms won't say much.
Come on Randy, Trump and good example in the same thought?
Sure Gus, Trump and a snake oil salesman as well.
Hey Randy, what CONservatives will never admit to is that we as Americans are now paying MORE in taxes than we ever have in our HISTORY because of the Insane Trump Trade War Tariffs: gas prices are also through the roof, HealthCARE Premiums are through the roof and taxes on almost everything we buy have SKYROCKETED under this orange abomination: Next time you buy lumber at home depot check out the "Lumber Fee" on your receipt:
There are, have been, and will be plenty of threads speaking to all those "Trump" issues that are of such concern to you Don, but this thread isn't one of them.
The topic was what non-extreme voters would think of all the different tax increase proposals - even though they are all tied to some sort of 'freebie'.
For political junkies like us, your comments are understood, but I suspect that we are a very very small minority of the not-directly-involved voting public.
I have seen it stated that between 40% and 60% of voters are not Trump or Democrat diehard supporters. Those are the folks the topic was asking about.
What do you think Don, would those voters be concerned about all the new tax proposals to support the freebie programs?
For every possible "wipe-out-student-debt" convert do you think there is an equal number of folks that wonder about who is going to pay for that freebie?
For every "Medicare-for-all" supporter, (which most certainly will be poorer than Middle-class folks), do you think there are folks happy with their healthcare wondering who will pay for the new "Medicare for all" or what it will mean for their healthcare that they are happy with?
For every person supportive of the proposals, that in essence amount to open borders, do you think there are equal numbers of folks that are concerned with our immigration issues that do not support open borders?
Join me Don. I have been rightly chastised for "professerly" threads and comments, so let's take a new direction; What are your thoughts and opinions on this topic? There are no facts to check or sources to quote, it is just an opinion question.
In the current political climate (the one where the people charged with running the country are engaged in an unprecedented sustained attack on the country's own democratic systems with the eagar assistance of people outside the country who wish to do us harm) not making reference to the Trump administration in a discussion about pretty much any policy decisions of consequence, would take a level of head-in-the-sandism that I can't seem to muster GA.
I hear what you are saying; a significant number of people don't see it that way. Their priority is looking at, for example, the minutiae of Democratic tax policy, but in my view if people are asleep while their house is on fire, I believe the best thing to do is alert them to the fact their house is on fire, not sing them a lullaby and send them into a deeper sleep.
So thank you for your invitation to join your new direction, but how about, as a fellow political junky, you help to work out the best way for Democrats and sensible Republicans to explain to people who don't see it, the danger the country's democratic processes are in? How about raising the alarm GA? How about helping people get out of bed?
Of course, they may decide to stay in bed, and that's their choice. But I personally don't want to be looking back in the future saying I did nothing to raise the alarm. Even if we're all wrong, and the Trump administration ushers in a golden age of peace and prosperity, I would rather have done something to raise the alarm and be proven wrong, than have done nothing and been proven right.
Engaging in political discourse in a way that suggests everything is fine, only helps normalize what's going on. And what's going on right now in the country's politics is not normal GA. The house is on fire! All hands to the pumps.
Sounds like a good idea. We can start with a discussion of the Democrats refusal to address the tens of thousands of people registered to vote that have no right to, with an eye to illegal aliens as the starting point.
Then we can move to the Democrats refusal to put the question of citizenship on the census, and what it does to primarily Democratic states to have tens of thousands of illegal aliens residing there but being counted, for voting purposes, as citizens.
When those have run their course we can address the Democrats refusal to control our borders, welcoming anyone that enters and providing them sanctuary from the laws of the nation, even going so far as to make public notice when enforcement personnel are in the area.
Those three shouldn't take more than a decade, given the Democrats attack on our democratic voting processes.
Didn't Trump want to investigate the "illegal voters" and eventually dropped the case because they couldn't find but a very few?
And why didn't the cons address the border when they had both houses and the POTUS, Dan?
No, he dropped the case because the Democrats made such a stink about there not being any (in the face of hard facts to the contrary) and it was a huge, HUGE thing to them.
Couldn't say for sure, buy my assumption and feeling is that Democrats believe illegal aliens will vote democrat so refuse to enforce the laws concerning immigration. For sure I can't think of another reason - every thinking person in the country recognizes that we cannot support unlimited hordes of foreign citizens feeding at the American trough.
No, he dropped the case because there was little proof illegals voted in the 2016 election. And if you have hard facts to the contrary, it's news to everyone. Care to post a link?
So why now did the cons do nothing when they had the power, Dan? You were a bit vague on your answer...
If they are registered to vote you can be sure that some are voting. Pretending that because we didn't determine that any did, from secret ballots, doesn't make sense any more than pretending that registered voters will not vote. This is exactly what I mean; a refusal to face reality in favor of assuming it doesn't happen...because if it did and we actually DID something about it would result in the loss of votes.
Not sure what that has to do with anything; the fact is that NOBODY has done anything for decades. Except, of course, actively providing sanctuary for criminals, and that is purely on the shoulders of liberals.
What it has to do with, is you blaming the left for what the right refused to do when they had the power.
What "secret ballots" are you referring to, Dan?
Is the left complicit in allowing people to register to vote when it is not legal to do so? Of course they are - every effort by the right to end the practice is fought tooth and toenail by the left.
Don't know about you, but I do not sign my ballot when voting. A secret ballot, then.
Prove your claim re the left's complicity in allowing illegals to vote, Dan. And do you show your drivers license or some other form of ID when voting?
Sorry - if you are so behind the times that you haven't caught the left claiming there is no illegal voting and throwing roadblocks in the way of any investigation I can't help you. Pretty sure anything I provide will be proclaimed just a "right wing rag" and ignored.
My name is not on the ballot. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate how I voted. By definition that is a "secret ballot".
Illegal voting? Trump's own commission couldn't find any and finally disbanded.
Faux news indeed...
We both know that isn't true - there WAS some found. And thousands of people illegally registered to vote, including a whole raft of dead people. Some of which "voted".
You don't have any proof of your claims, Dan. But keep on making false claims if it makes you feel better.
I suppose everyone casts a secret ballot, except for illegals, that is.
A valid question, just more proof that Congress is a corrupt body that doesn't serve the people's interests who put them there.
Same with the effort to rescind Obamacare, enough Republicans chose to keep that monstrosity in place rather than eradicate it, it would have angered the Insurance, Pharma, and Medical giants that put money in their pockets if they did so.
A corrupt system is the true problem... people in Congress with over 30 years, having gone from penniless to being worth hundreds of millions, politicians like McCain and Collins who ran on repealing Obamacare and then sold out the people who voted for them, this is where the true problem lies... Congress, as corrupt a political entity today as has ever existed on earth.
That was quite a speech, Don. If I understand your point then when your grocery cashier offers you a 'Good day' your reply would be not as long as Trump is president and let me tell you why.
Your neighbor complains about your dog pooping in their you and you say that doesn't matter, you should be focusing on what Pres. Trump is doing to our country. And I introduce a topic about the Democrat candidates' platform and you say who cares, defeating Trump is the only issue.
Is that a fair summation?
It appears we have both declined the invitation. You seem to have declined any discussion that doesn't involve Pre. Trump, and I decline to make Pres. Trump a focus point of every conversation.
"If I understand your point . . . "
Evidently you didn't. "Good day" does not constitute a "policy decision of consequence", which is the criterion I applied.
I also didn't say "who cares, defeating Trump is the only issue". That's your interpretation of what I said, and it's a misinterpretation.
I merely said that in a political climate where fundamental democratic systems are under siege by a sitting president aided and abetted by hostile foreign actors, any discussion about policy decisions of consequence, will inevitably refer back to that extraordinary political situation. For me to not refer to that situation, would require a level of passivity and detachment I don't think I now possess.
I hope that makes it clearer.
If not, I'll put it another way. If I were in a burning building, and my housemate started talking about home improvements, at some point I'd succumb to the urge to mention the fact the house is currently burning. That doesn't mean I don't like home improvements, it simply means I think the house burning has some fundamental relevance. Mentioning it would therefore not be unreasonable or surprising.
What I would find surprising is if my housemate suggested I was somehow at fault for mentioning the house is burning down, even though it is, because they are sick of hearing about it and (according to them) it has nothing to do with home improvements anway.
At that point, I'd probably wish them well and exit, leaving them to contemplate whether terracotta would look good on the kitchen walls, even as those walls slowly burned.
I hope that also makes it clearer.
And no, I have not "declined any discussion that doesn't involve Pre. Trump", I am simply saying there is almost no subject in modern politics, at federal level, in which the harm being caused by the current administration is not relevant or does not have some impact.
If you choose to do the work of normalizing this presidency, that's your choice. I refuse to. Nothing about this presidency is normal. The (White) house is currently burning, and I'll continue to say so.
Hear, hear, Don. Some do not care about the oversight of Congress being ignored. Do they not understand this is a precedent for future POTUS?
If he doesn't understand this explanation, then I fear he never will.
Yes, you have made your point clear Don. It has been clear all along; you have one clear over-riding priority, and you feel no political considerations are complete if they don't include addressing that priority.
I wasn't quibbling about the power of your belief in your priority, but I was arguing against your thought that there are no topics divorced from that priority.
Would the Democrat candidates promoting their policies equate to your housemates arguing about home improvement projects inside your burning house?
Would your priority have them simply explaining how they would defeat Trump and why they are the only one that can defeat him?
The two debates so far, and what I hear and read about Democrat strategists and politicians seem to disagree with you. Their thought is that the candidates should focus on issues and plans - not just on your priority, and Trump was not the focus of the candidates' comments at the debates.
It seems I am not the only one that thinks substantive issues can be discussed without subjugating them to Trump criticisms.
Would it be fair to say your priority of defeating Trump is also the priority of all other Democrats, (barring the exceptions-to-the-rule of course)? And if that is a fair statement then why would it need to be a discussed condition of almost every subject in modern politics, at the federal level, if it is a 'given' that every Democrat understands?
You are mistaken in thinking that my comments are intended to "normalize" Pres. Trump's presidency. I was trying not to discuss him. I thought I was discussing a topic that did not dwell on him.
Yes, the candidates should focus on issues and plans. None of those issues and plans will matter if the chosen candidate cannot beat Trump.
Jeb couldn't beat him. Marco couldn't beat him. Ted couldn't beat him. Hillary couldn't beat him. Trump is not a normal man, he is not a normal president, any race in which he is a candidate will not be normal. Typical politics is out the window. Yes, we'll evaluate the candidates on their policies but none of them are worth a hoot if they can't beat Trump. That's just how it is.
As for your "non-extreme voter," if they haven't figured out what a threat Trump is to this nation by now, then it is even more important that the chosen Democratic candidate can take on Trump in a way that exposes him for the lame, pathetic fraud that he is. Kamala can definitely do it. Elizabeth can probably do it. Bernie can mybe do it. Biden? I'm not so sure. He's lost some of his sharpness.
"Yes, you have made your point clear Don.. . . you have one clear over-riding priority, and you feel no political considerations are complete if they don't include addressing that priority"
Evidently I have not made my point clear, because I think that's an unfair summary.
It's not so much that I have one overriding priority. It's more that I can't help but notice the toxic effects of the Trump administration in public life, even when that's the last thing I want to see or think about.
But you're chasing a strawman with the suggestion that I think Trump should be discussed at every Democratic debate. I didn't say or mean that.
It would be absurd not to reference the Trump administration in a thread about what may or may not alarm voters, even if you restrict the discussion to the question in the thread title.
Under any normal presidency, if the answer to your question were yes, voters are alarmed by the tax policies of Democratic candidates, and presumably less likely to vote for them as a result, that could be the premise of an interesting discussion about Democratic tax policy.
Under the current presidency, if the answer is yes, that effectively means that some people are more alarmed by Democratic tax policies, than the fact that Nazis feel such an affinity for the current president they literally give him Nazi salutes.
So it's not so much that I want to talk about Trump and not tax policy. I just don't know how to have a discussion about tax policy, when the premise of the discussion is the idea that some people might be more alarmed by Democratic tax policy than by having a president who Nazis celebrate and feel comfortable with! Does that make sense?
My natural response to that is to ask what the hell is wrong with those people, and what has gone so wrong in the country, that that could even be the case?
Do you think that constitutes me having an "over-riding priority" and feeling that "no political considerations are complete if they don't include addressing that priority"? I concede I may not have explained myself well, but do you honestly think that's an accurate and fair summary of what I'm saying?
Simply put, the premise of this thread (voters being alarmed) makes it difficult to ignore the Trump-shaped elephant in the room, but that is also something I am increasingly finding to be the case on other threads too.
"So it's not so much that I want to talk about Trump and not tax policy. I just don't know how to have a discussion about tax policy, when the premise of the discussion is the idea that some people might be more alarmed by Democratic tax policy than by having a president who Nazis celebrate and feel comfortable with! Does that make sense?"
I think with this answer, as with everything else you said, you negate the idea that you can consider anything at all besides how to get Trump out of office, and what an evil person he is.
Exactly right. Who cares what a few nitwit Nazi wannabes think or do... They are a miniscule minority less than 1% of the population, like antifa, just less of them.
This is CNN level silliness.
Perhaps I did misunderstand your point Don. However, in the context of your joining, and subsequent comments, I don't think my perception of your "over-riding priority" was a misguided understanding.
You say that you didn't say or mean that Trump should be a part of every discussion, (or debate), yet in the context of this discussion, you have said this
"Faced with two issues: 1. a possible tax increase by a future Democratic administration or 2. a certain continued and unprecedented assault by the current administration on the country's democratic systems and the Constitution (including the obliteration of Congressional oversight powers); I think stopping 2 is the higher priority . . ."
". . . any discussion about policy decisions of consequence, will inevitably refer back to that extraordinary political situation. For me to not refer to that situation, would require a level of passivity and detachment I don't think I now possess."
"I am simply saying there is almost no subject in modern politics, at federal level, in which the harm being caused by the current administration is not relevant or does not have some impact."
". . . not making reference to the Trump administration in a discussion about pretty much any policy decisions of consequence, would take a level of head-in-the-sandism that I can't seem to muster GA."
Sorry for the quotes cut & paste, but I think they illustrate that my drawn conclusion was a fair one.
Hell, even your closing thought here seems to fit that trend:
"Simply put, the premise of this thread (voters being alarmed) makes it difficult to ignore the Trump-shaped elephant in the room . . ."
There was no elephant in the room until you introduced it Don. I am familiar with the use of strawmen in discussions, and I don't think my suggestion of your point is one.
So yes, I can honestly say I think mine was an accurate and fair summary. Even if my summary is wrong I think you can see why I reached it. The topic was about candidate platforms alarming non-extreme voters, not about any alarm some voters may feel from Pres. Trump's actions.
*Your Nazis inclusion surprised me Don. I don't usually see you resort to that tactic.
You missed a quote:
"Evidently I have not made my point clear".
I wasn't joking.
What you're seeing is someone's attitude changing, in real-time. I'm sorry it's messy and confusing. It's confusing for me too as I try to articulate it. I can only be as honest as I can.
For a while now, I've been seeing changes in public discourse (I post on other political forums so this is not just about HubPages): the dismissal of Trump's behavior by seemingly reasonable people as no big deal; the refusal to even acknowledge, let alone consider verifiable facts; the attempt to shutdown legitimate criticism as "Trump-bashing", "TDS" and other variants; the false equivalence which suggests Trump's behaviour is no worse than any other president. And worse, the bothsidesism that treats falsehoods as a just different perspective.
I've seen these things done in the name of fairness and impartiality, but I've now come to realize that it's not unfair or biased to point out when something is objectively false, or plainly wrong. It's not "Trump-bashing" to say the current president is a bigoted, and immoral oaf if that's a demonstrable truth (which it is).
So I'm still no sure what my new rules of engagement are. I'm still figuring it out, but here's what I know in relation to what you've discussed:
I don't only want to talk about Trump and the current administration.
I do see the toxicity of the current administration seeping into every facet of politics, and becoming more relevant to lots of different issues though.
I don't think all the Democratic nominees should talk about nothing but defeating Trump.
I do think nominees should articulate exactly what's wrong with the Trump administration and what it stands for though.
I do think some people might be "alarmed" by proposed Democratic candidate tax policies.
I don't think it's unreasonable though to mention that if these people are more alarmed by those policies than anything Trump is doing, that's not so much a negative reflection on those policies, as a reflection on those people's judgement and moral compass.
I do think Democratic nominees are engaging in a type of respectability politics where they want to show they can behave "better" than Trump.
I don't think Trump and his supporters will understand anything other than Trump being (figuratively) smacked around by someone who can give as good as they get.
If you can extrapolate a "position" out of that for your thread, great. If not, I don't think I'm able to explain in a way that won't muddy the water further.
Perhaps when I figure it out myself, I'll let you know. But I'm not deliberately trying to lead you down a blind alley, or derail your thread.
In terms of the Nazi comment. I am a "non extreme" voter, and I am alarmed by the fact that Nazis feel comfortable and happy enough with the president to shout "heil Trump". I have never seen or heard of such a thing with any other president. If you have, tell me who and when, because I'd be genuinely interested. The main point is, I am more alarmed by that and everything else I know about the current administration, than Democratic tax policies.
So (to try to make amends for veering ever so slightly off topic) the answer to the question you have posed is, yes some people may be alarmed, but in the context of everything else that's happening right now, if that is what determines their vote, that says more about them than it does the tax policies.
And also no, many others will not be alarmed. I offer myself as an example of that.
If we can agree that voters can be alarmed by both Trump's actions and candidate platforms, without one worry negating the other, then I hope we can agree that either can be discussed without demanding the inclusion of the other in the discussion.
If that works for you, let's close the door on this aspect of the discussion.
Referring back to the point of the OP, (and including a reference that is a nod to your point); I think that the candidates are running so far Left that their promises will alarm and alienate many non-extreme, non-Democrat voters. Perhaps to the point of forcing them to consider a Trump vote.
I know that sounds like am impossible blasphemy to you, but there are many indicators that there are a lot of those neutral or on-the-fence voters out there. I think any Democrat candidate will need a lot of those voters to win the general election. Hence the question in the OP.
A final note; To your comment; "What you're seeing is someone's attitude changing, in real-time." Let me give witness to that. It is a situation I frequently find myself in. ;-)
Sure, it's a balancing act.
The Dems need to appeal to those on the left with an appetite for radical change, while also appealing to the center-right. One thing they should certainly do is reframe the discussion on the economy.
Obviously for Trump and the Republicans, economic growth will be a key positive message. But I'd gamble the majority of ordinary working people in the country have not seen any substantial improvement in their economic circumstances since Trump took office, and I'd use that (but it would need to be confirmed by factual evidence).
Making the economy personal, i.e. what has four years of Trump done for you, helps diffuse one of Trump's key messages. It's not a denial of economic growth, which would be foolish, but a re-emphasis on the fact the growth has mostly benefited a few rich people, rather than the majority of ordinary, hard-working people in the country.
The Dems then need to demonstrate how what they are proposing is better for ordinary people (is it best to give money to rich CEOs and hope they put it in ordinary people's pockets, or is there a better way?).
I think for some people in the centre, Trump was a wait-and-see. Maybe their thinking was that his (very many) failings would be a price worth paying if he could pull off all the "winning" he promised. The Trump campaign will do it's darndest to show he has done exactly that. I don't think the Dems need to do much to show that only Trump, his family and his rich CEO friends are doing most of the "winning" and largely at the expense of everyone else in the country.
I think that type of messaging could appeal to the left and the centre-right.
It is opinion only, and I'll state that right up front, but the people I see and talk to, whether friends, neighbors, social media contacts or just surfing the web, are pretty much happy with the economy, and from a very personal basis.
You should see the comments of "Wow! You should see what my IRA (or 401 or retirement) is doing!". It's almost inevitable that this will come up in any discussion of the economy, and it isn't just the rich that are saying it. The elderly, on SSI, are especially prone to mention their retirement account, and they are a big voting block. The straight middle class, struggling to provide for their senior years are the same. They young no longer have trouble finding a job.
About the only ones disgruntled are those that don't want to work and are finding it more difficult all the time to convince the unemployment office that "I tried, but just can't find work!".
As you say, it needs factual evidence, and from questions not spun to produce a "No" answer.
"About the only ones disgruntled are those that don't want to work and are finding it more difficult all the time to convince the unemployment office that "I tried, but just can't find work!"."
Where do you get this notion, exactly? I know you stated at the beginning of the post that this is just your opinion, but there must be some basis for this statement. Do you know people who have said this? have you read about people who say this? Or what?
"...the people I see and talk to, whether friends, neighbors, social media contacts or just surfing the web..."
That constitutes the basis for my opinion. The only people that aren't better than they were before Trump are those that made grievous financial errors in their life, but they did it to themselves. Everyone else, without exception, considers themselves better off in today's economy than they were a few years ago.
How about you? Are your acquaintances and friends going downhill, losing their job or home, seeing their IRA go down in value, never able to replace the wreck they were driving 5 years ago? Or have the unemployed (surely you knew someone that lost their job in the recession) back to work? Have any of them bought a new car or big appliance? Remember, we're not talking about people doing better but angry they aren't a millionaire because, after all, some people are.
"I don't think the Dems need to do much to show that only Trump, his family and his rich CEO friends are doing most of the "winning" and largely at the expense of everyone else in the country."
Can you explain how exactly Trump, his family and his rich CEO friends are winning at the expense of "everyone else in the country?" and who "everyone else" is?
I am quite in the dark at this point, in regards to this statement. Maybe if you could kindly shed some light.
Have you seen Trump's tax returns, kat? If not, why?
why are they so important to you? He is a business man and he knows the game. That he plays it well is fine by me. He has not ripped me off and he has not ripped you off. He has done what he could to keep his own finances safe. The rich have more to loose than the typical person.
Really, this is an easy one. Many voters will always be concerned about both increasing taxes and how that tax money is spent.
Will the Trump debt deter any of the non-extreme voters?
https://www.thebalance/us-debt-by-presi … nt-3306296
Is it that we should keep Trump out of the discussion when he clearly isn't on the good side of the facts? Is it then that we should ONLY discuss how Trump's opposition may also be on that side of the facts? This is an eerie discussion. Edit: maybe I should head on over to Valient's "Will Trump be the costliest elected official ever?" discussion. That seems even more relevant right now.
- let's break it down like this to avoid so many wordy sentences:
There is good and there is bad.
Half of us instinctively know what is good for life and survival in a real sense.
The other half does not.
And there are only two directions: One tends toward truth and reality ... and the other, away from it.
Stop trying to conjure up a middle ground in this day and age. its not
real, its shaky, and it will never stand strong. Is it human nature we are battling or some metaphysical phenomenon?
The Middle/Independent, it seems, cannot be a majority.
Why, I don't know.
In my view, we have to pick sides even if the side we pick is not totally conducive to our own ideals. Pick the side which stands for the MOST of your own ideals.
And start with Your Own thinking.
Group-think = Non-think.
THINK! (for yourself.)
Hint: If you truly love the idea of sticking it to the one-percent and to the upper class and to the upper middle class and to the middle class and the lower middle class and the working poor, vote for any liberal you please.
If you prefer a percolating economy where the people have the freedom to follow their own ambitions, talents, motivations and interests, vote for any conservative you please.
Which direction do you pick and why?
"Will Democrat Candidate's Tax Increase Plans Alarm Non-Extreme Voters?"
What the heck is a "Non-Extreme Voter" ?
(A non-extreme voter must be a mushy, wishy-washy lounge liberal who is probably ingesting too much Pot.)
(Maybe the extreme voters are on Speed.)
Or perhaps even a religious right Trump fan who's been drinking too much Kool-Aid? I suppose we'll see...
Self-think is the solution and therein lies the difficulty.
You are not playing nice at all. humph!
not you individually, or I would be banned of course.
Apparently you were speaking for those you aren't, right? Brilliant!
Apparently I was speaking for myself. I am in the habit of thinking for myself. I am advocating the everyone look into their own hearts, use their own reasoning and gather from their own knowledge of the world and its true history, rather than subscribe to hate-filled college professors who distort history, the fake news/ mis-information put out by the media ...
and others who spout nonsense as though it were not.
A Fox News fan no doubt. Are you in Los Angeles or Louisiana, Kathy? From your posts I'd guess the bayous...
I hope people from the bayous agree with me. People from LA ... I already know: not so much.
what? Are they too contritely and spiffily politically correct?
I know a lot of these rats who run as fast as they can from the likes of me, The Kat.
https://traveltips.usatoday.com/louisia … 59733.html
This is a response from someone I know on Face book. I haven't read it yet, but I paste it here to read it.
"To accept it as being this simple would be to accept that individuals without a family lineage of wealth and connection have as much of a chance to succeed as the upper class, and some of us just don’t believe that is true.
And, just because there are people who have risen from poverty, does not prove we who are philosophically skeptical of the system to be incorrect; that’s inductive reasoning. White privilege is just one example that has resulted in socio-economical bias.
Also, all the candidates on the left are absolutely not focused on “sticking it to the upper class.” Bernie for instance wants to dissolve all student debt regardless of tax bracket! Warren thinks a little differently on the matter... Liberals tend to analyze the nuances more than conservatives.
Conservatives tend to see things from their perspective. That’s why they see human rights as a drain on their pocketbooks: gay marriage, abortion for rape victims, no-regulation for corporate crooks, insurance companies allowed to “compete” at the cost of the less fortunate. Also, Donald Trump is by no means a conservative. He’s a dipshit opportunist with a rich dad, a terribly speckled record with individuals, an imposter, an embarrassment... They deny climate change, immigrant children should drink “toilet water,” their own daughters are sexually appealing, they meet with mass murderers on a world scale, they want to eradicate the EPA, they clearly engage in business despite their public office, they deal with people indicted for crime, they pay off women... It’s next-level demagoguery from intellectual infants.
The self respecting republicans are turning their backs on these fascists right and left, as is the Supreme Court.
If you think the “conservatives” in there at present are for smaller government and the individual, think again.
The employment rate at a low doesn’t mean their motives are good; again, that’s not thorough reasoning. Elizabeth Warren wants to bust up big agriculture. THAT, is a real ambition. THAT is necessary. No regulations doesn’t equal fair, and it never will as long as the richest folks are governed by greed. That is tyranny." VM
Apparently, my FB friend hates the rich.
But I do agree with what he mentions about the need for regulations.
Yes. History books and those college professors who write them are ALL just hate-filled and misinformed. It's better to scour the internet for those who have the facts that you agree with. That's where the real education is obtained.
I think some college professors can be hate filled, but it also seems some conservative Christian Fox news goers have some hate to bring and they love slinging it around.
Getting back to the question posted by GA Anderson: "Will Democrat Candidate's Tax Increase Plans Alarm Non-Extreme Voters?"
The New Liberalism as initiated by Obama perhaps should have been assigned to Libertarians, not Democrats. Then they wouldn't be so confused and offended. Those who are offended are too confused to even speak up!
I actually feel sorry for Democrats of today!
GA Anderson wrote:
"My first thoughts are of amazement that almost every Democrat candidate is proposing massive expenditures, and, of course, massive tax increases to go along with those expenditures.
They all seem to be trying to out-free stuff each other."
So, how come, I wonder?!
In case you were wondering where your tax increases will be going...
Right, but you do know the money already belonged to Iran in the first place. If you didn't, then you need to get your story straight before posting stolen memes. But then, you probably don't care...
Is that what we're calling ransom money these days?
If giving someone their own money back after it was taken years earlier is "ransom," then I suppose it is.
If you paid a ransom to get a loved one back, I doubt you'd get the money back unless the kidnappers were caught. But apparently you can justify it in your mind...
So if you owe me money I can kidnap your children. Got it.
You ARE confused Dude. Are you ignorant of the fact the US would have lost a World Court judgement if the US didn't return the money seized by our government? Apparently you are...
Try again and try a factual stolen meme this time.
And I suppose they should just return all the money that was seized from El Chapo too.
So to recap, you are in favor of giving money to kidnappers and terrorists. Guess you win...
No, I am in favor of not stealing someone else's money. And are you ignorant of the World Court? Should we drop out of that as well? You seem ready to break the law just because you want to, onus.
You are indeed ignorant of the definition of "ransom."
This old lie has been passed around right-wing media and blogs for so long that no matter how many times it is debunked it cannot be dislodged from the propaganda pathway burned into their willingly misinformed brains.
What are you talking about? Liberals love taking money from other people and redistributing it to themselves.
That has nothing to do with your meme, onus. You neglected to address the forthcoming World Court judgement. Once again, are you ignorant of the definition of "'ransom?"
Sure it does.
And I don't give a crap about the world court or the UN. And neither should any American.
So now you're speaking for ALL Americans? Good luck with that!
And it's clear you don't care much for the law.
Just a heads up Randy, you are feeding one of the resident trolls. You'll get no sensible response from there, only moronic memes and sh** posting. Just letting you know.
I've had many run ins with aa, Don. I know his MO and his reputation as many do here. It's fun to make a fool out of him so easily and without him realizing it. DOH!
It's always amusing to see you trying to figure me out. Good luck with that.
I figured you out years ago, aa. As I stated previously, you know or care nothing for our laws or those of other countries. And you're obviously wrong about the money given back to the Iranians. Having to admit it apparently is too much for your psyche. Just like Trump!
And your foreign policy is to unfreeze their accounts and leave the terrorists to their own devices. Keep funding Hezbollah and Hamas. Great idea.
Using your reasoning, why don't we simply steal money from all the countries? Let's start with Israel, they seem to have a lot of money. Would that be fine with you, the "ransom" expert?
Better yet, with your genius you should straighten out the World Court judges. Good luck with that....
I know it's hard for you to understand, but Israel isn't a terrorist organization.
And it's odd that you put so much faith in the world court while at the same time you admit to the improbability of straightening them out. I don't want to straighten them out, I want to ignore them. They're wasteful, and ineffective, and expensive.
Some Americans are becoming just like terrorists in their hatred for American values and their preference for Marxist values. Its no wonder as the Internet is bombarding our people with lies and negative garbage, (destructive ideologies.)
More than ten thousand illegal aliens from countries that sponsor terrorism have crossed the Mexican border and never returned to where they were originally from. They are reportedly from Iran,
(6,331,) Syria, (2,128,) Sudan, (1,860) and 21 from North Korea.
Iran provides financial support, training and equipment to terrorist groups worldwide, including Hezbollah.
ISIL, the al-Nusrah Front and other groups in Syria advocate suicide bombing, kidnapping, the use of arms of all sizes, including improvised explosive devices in Damascus, Aleppo, Hamas, Dara, Homs Idlib and Dayr al-Zawr.
Once they are in America, it isn't a stretch to suggest they are bombarding the internet with the propaganda of the "New Liberalism."
More than ever, we need to be able to think for ourselves and rely on what we know to be true about our history and our values.
Real Americans, UNITE!
Who is a "real" American? And what are we uniting for?
A real American loves America, of course. There is an effort to undermine this love. Americans need to to unite against the influence of the "New Liberalism."
I suppose you know who loves America and who doesn't? Just like you know God favors Trump?
those who are not afraid to be patriotic. they love America.
I love America. I fly the flag outside my home. I served in the Army for four years. I think Trump is horrible for America. I voted for Obama twice and consider myself mostly liberal, maybe not as extreme as some of the liberals, but all the same...just saying.
We could just as easy turn this around and say there's a big faction of Trump supporters who state, or at the least strongly imply, you cannot love America without loving Trump. To me, that is anti-American and unpatriotic.
All the generalizations are not good.
nervermind. whenever I ask a liberal this question they usually run away.
LOL, you give someone two minutes and back to the generalizations. I love the freedoms, the relatively good opportunities to earn at least a decent living, the idea that our forefathers created a strong Constitution that guarantees freedom of and from religions, etc.
Never mind, someone who knows what God wants will never listen to an answer anyway. You already know what everyone thinks. Why even ask? I'm just glad not all Christians are so hate-filled and disrespectful.
Take care and I hope you are always happy.
Edit: And, at least I serve my country instead of running away from a draft!!! Captain bone spurs, lol
The vast diversity of people and cultures under one flag.
The national parks and vast open spaces.
The urban centers full of life, music, and every kind of art one can imagine.
The rivers, lakes, oceans, mountains, deserts, forests, all of it.
I love that America has been a role model and world leader and I hope we retain that role.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
All based on the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence.
Yes, we are a country of laws, many of which your idol ignores.
He is not my idol. Why would he be? Which laws does President Trump ignore?
... so let the impeachment begin!
How come we haven't impeached him for all the laws he has broken?
Because Nancy thinks it isn't politically helpful to her party. I disagree with Nancy on this issue, though I understand her reasoning.. It is Congress' duty to impeach.
"Duty" is not a word Democrats recognize, apparently.
Neither do Republican legislators, so perhaps that gives the Democrats a reason to ignore their own duties.
Because the republicans in the senate do not care if he's a crook. Duh!
It is not patriotic to worship a man who tears down the people and organizations that keep us safe while kowtowing to Putin and professing love for Kim Jong Un.
The bigger picture is not understood as you tear down someone who does.
by Readmikenow 6 days ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
by dutchman1951 11 years ago
What Pelosi Told CNN in her press confrence when she announced the Public Option is back. She was asked a question about the Congressional Budget Offices' Costs estimates, and she saidQuote: Well... IT is NOT a Tax increase, it is an elimination of a Tax Decrease~!WHAAAAAAT????????How did this YoYo...
by Ralph Deeds 9 years ago
According to Lawrence O'Brien tonight, the most powerful man in the GOP, Grover Norquist, suffered a little setback today. Forty "Republican members of the House of Representatives signed a letter stating that the "Super Committee" should consider all options for balancing the...
by Onusonus 8 years ago
I know I'm making 80 less dollars a month this year, how about you?
by Pat 8 years ago
What salary do you think would be fair for a tax increase?I personally think it should be 400,000 +. Small business owners who are making 250,000 will not have any money to to expand and add more employees. If they are taxed at this level they may also have to lay off people. ...
by Don W 19 months ago
For some people who like Biden, one of the reasons is the fact he is a centrist. For some people who dislike Biden, one of the reasons is the fact he is a centrist.Either way, what's the case for or against centrist candidates on either side? What's the case for or against centrism period?
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|