|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 9, 2016 0:09:13 GMT
The Dems are all about scaring people. Wonder where they got that idea.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 9, 2016 0:15:48 GMT
The Dems are all about scaring people. It's fucking pathetic. I was watching Big Brother last night and a Clinton ad came on. It showed a couple of clips of Trump acting like a dope, a couple of sound bites from people worried about the nuke codes and ended with "Donald Trump Too Dangerous". And when did all of this nuke bullshit begin anyway? I don't recall "Don't elect Obama. Black people are violent. He can't have nukes." Trump's more erratic and emotional and passive aggressive than any woman I've ever met. He put the nuke scare on the table as a calculated play to the kill em all and let God sort em out crowd. He's said why have them if you're not going to use them, and that he'd never say never to using them in Europe. Ironic to hear the Democrats are about scaring people. All I've heard - as a passive participant - from the mouths of Republicans is how under threat the US is from all sides because the current admin is weak etc. It's the main plank of their platform - not solving problems, but scaring people into giving them a wide open mandate to do whatever they want. Drumpf's playbook Talk about how great you are. Talk about how not-great everyone else is. Elaborate on nothing. Ogle your daughter a bit. (Fat pig!) Declare yourself victorious. Make an excuse for while you'll lose. Don't have to wonder why Dumpster is currently losing the white college educated voter.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 9, 2016 0:23:43 GMT
The Dems are all about scaring people. It's fucking pathetic. I was watching Big Brother last night and a Clinton ad came on. It showed a couple of clips of Trump acting like a dope, a couple of sound bites from people worried about the nuke codes and ended with "Donald Trump Too Dangerous". Give me a friggin' break. Who says Clinton can handle that responsibility? And who ever thought it was the President alone? The SoD has to be involved as well. But really, Clinton is a woman. Women are erratic. Is she any more equipped mentally to handle nukes? And when did all of this nuke bullshit begin anyway? I don't recall "Don't elect Obama. Black people are violent. He can't have nukes." Obama only became fully black once he won. While he was running he was half white, half black. Because he is. All blacks, that get it, assimilate to their white surroundings. That's why I like Richard Steele. He tells black america, that think he's an uncle tom, to go eff themselves. They both assimilate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 0:57:52 GMT
Trump's more erratic and emotional and passive aggressive than any woman I've ever met. He put the nuke scare on the table as a calculated play to the kill em all and let God sort em out crowd. He's said why have them if you're not going to use them, and that he'd never say never to using them in Europe. Ironic to hear the Democrats are about scaring people. All I've heard - as a passive participant - from the mouths of Republicans is how under threat the US is from all sides because the current admin is weak etc. It's the main plank of their platform - not solving problems, but scaring people into giving them a wide open mandate to do whatever they want. Drumpf's playbook Talk about how great you are. Talk about how not-great everyone else is. Elaborate on nothing. Ogle your daughter a bit. (Fat pig!) Declare yourself victorious. Make an excuse for while you'll lose. Don't have to wonder why Dumpster is currently losing the white college educated voter. That's a bullshit narrative. Whites without degrees polled ten points higher under Romney than Trump. You should take that talking point and throw it in the trash.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 9, 2016 1:14:43 GMT
Anything that doesn't fit your narrative is bullshit. RepubliKLANs haven't lost the white college educated demographic since 1952. But it might happen this election year. But hey at least Trump has the uneducated, blue collar white male vote over Billary. That should get him the WH.
Dumpster might even turn over two GOOBer strogholds to the Dems, Arizona and Georgia. Go Drumpf Go!
|
|
|
Post by neelycam on Aug 9, 2016 1:43:23 GMT
Little humor
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 2:48:04 GMT
Anything that doesn't fit your narrative is bullshit. RepubliKLANs haven't lost the white college educated demographic since 1952. But it might happen this election year. But hey at least Trump has the uneducated, blue collar white male vote over Billary. That should get him the WH. Dumpster might even turn over two GOOBer strogholds to the Dems, Arizona and Georgia. Go Drumpf Go! You know that demographic voted Dem for forty years, right? So there's no use gloating or using that one demographic, which I pointed out as a logical conflation, to sneer about a candidate's voting bloc or feel superior about voting for an irrelevant third party candidate. Here are other "demographics" that will vote for Hillary: -Welfare mothers -Uneducated, blue collar black and Hispanic males -Felons (if they could vote) -Druggies and Potheads -Illegals (if they could vote) -The unemployed (see welfare) -Do nothing unions that take twenty years to complete bridges -Coastal, guilt ridden privileged white people (Utah and Bhab) -No hopers -Layabouts -Gay limbo dancers in the next bathroom stall
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 9, 2016 5:21:01 GMT
Gloating ? It's a statistic that you don't want to see. Dumpster lost a voting demographic that used to be GOP lock.
Who gets the most welfare in the US ? Corporations.
"Druggies and potheads"
Ha! Get back in your H.G. Wells time machine and go back to the 80s to hold hands with Nancy Reagan.
You are living in the wrong decade, HankB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 11:12:21 GMT
Gloating ? It's a statistic that you don't want to see. Dumpster lost a voting demographic that used to be GOP lock. Who gets the most welfare in the US ? Corporations. "Druggies and potheads" Ha! Get back in your H.G. Wells time machine and go back to the 80s to hold hands with Nancy Reagan. You are living in the wrong decade, HankB Such a classy electorate. I think you've been seduced by the Stewart Sneer, MemeMan. You should remember before you turn your nose up at working people that half of the people that vote Democrat vote for handouts. The Democratic Party is for losers.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Aug 9, 2016 11:49:54 GMT
Gloating ? It's a statistic that you don't want to see. Dumpster lost a voting demographic that used to be GOP lock. Who gets the most welfare in the US ? Corporations. "Druggies and potheads" Ha! Get back in your H.G. Wells time machine and go back to the 80s to hold hands with Nancy Reagan. You are living in the wrong decade, HankB Such a classy electorate. I think you've been seduced by the Stewart Sneer, MemeMan. You should remember before you turn your nose up at working people that half of the people that vote Democrat vote for handouts. The Democratic Party is for losers. And this post shows how classy a typical Republican is.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 9, 2016 12:28:28 GMT
Gloating ? It's a statistic that you don't want to see. Dumpster lost a voting demographic that used to be GOP lock. Who gets the most welfare in the US ? Corporations. "Druggies and potheads" Ha! Get back in your H.G. Wells time machine and go back to the 80s to hold hands with Nancy Reagan. You are living in the wrong decade, HankB Such a classy electorate. I think you've been seduced by the Stewart Sneer, MemeMan. You should remember before you turn your nose up at working people that half of the people that vote Democrat vote for handouts. The Democratic Party is for losers. Red States and Corporations get the biggest handouts from the federal government.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 12:43:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Aug 9, 2016 14:30:01 GMT
Such a classy electorate. I think you've been seduced by the Stewart Sneer, MemeMan. You should remember before you turn your nose up at working people that half of the people that vote Democrat vote for handouts. The Democratic Party is for losers. Red States and Corporations get the biggest handouts from the federal government. Sometimes you have to live in the west to get a sense for this, I think. Colorado is all about this image of 'frontier mentality' and independence from federal government...right up until they need subsidized water, land and fuel for the industry. Tons of "welfare cowboys" out here. I work in government and hear it all the time. Ranchers and oil/gas development types demanding that the government get out of their business, while they profit from federal land, irrigated with federal water, on a federal lease, using subsidized federal fuel...it's a joke. Do I see the other side? Absolutely. I live in Denver with my kids in Denver public school. Taxes are getting sky high, state and federal, while thousands freeload. I pay $700 a month for kindergarten in a public school, while half the kids go there for free, and my wife and I both work full-time and are far from wealthy. Then I pay hundreds for cafeteria services, even though my kids don't eat there. It's covers food for the disadvantaged kids. We have to buy 3-times the school supplies our kids need, to cover the poorer kids. Same with admin fees, car insurance, etc. etc. It's ridiculous. I sat next to one of the 'disadvantaged Dads' recently and he smelled like booze and noted being "between jobs" for the past year... But the whole narrative about Democrats exclusively being losers or desperate for handouts is foolhardy (and I'm no Democrat). Look at who pays federal taxes and who receives federal money. The most heavily federally taxed states per capita? All blue (usually Jersey, NY, Conn, MA, CA). The biggest recipients of federal government spending? All red states. Federal taxation and spending is like a transfer of wealth from blue states to red states.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 15:17:54 GMT
Red States and Corporations get the biggest handouts from the federal government. Sometimes you have to live in the west to get a sense for this, I think. Colorado is all about this image of 'frontier mentality' and independence from federal government...right up until they need subsidized water, land and fuel for the industry. Tons of "welfare cowboys" out here. I work in government and hear it all the time. Ranchers and oil/gas development types demanding that the government get out of their business, while they profit from federal land, irrigated with federal water, on a federal lease, using subsidized federal fuel...it's a joke. Do I see the other side? Absolutely. I live in Denver with my kids in Denver public school. Taxes are getting sky high, state and federal, while thousands freeload. I pay $700 a month for kindergarten in a public school, while half the kids go there for free, and my wife and I both work full-time and are far from wealthy. Then I pay hundreds for cafeteria services, even though my kids don't eat there. It's covers food for the disadvantaged kids. We have to buy 3-times the school supplies our kids need, to cover the poorer kids. Same with admin fees, car insurance, etc. etc. It's ridiculous. I sat next to one of the 'disadvantaged Dads' recently and he smelled like booze and noted being "between jobs" for the past year... But the whole narrative about Democrats exclusively being losers or desperate for handouts is foolhardy (and I'm no Democrat). Look at who pays federal taxes and who receives federal money. The most heavily federally taxed states per capita? All blue (usually Jersey, NY, Conn, MA, CA). The biggest recipients of federal government spending? All red states. Federal taxation and spending is like a transfer of wealth from blue states to red states. So what do you mean by "corporate welfare?" A lot of these subsidies were given to try and jumpstart the economy, like the Wall Street/GM Bailout or energy subsidies that prioritized wind and solar power over other sources for tax dollars. How you can label policies from both parties to categorize red and blue states? Blue states are wealthier than red states because of the major cities, which is why they pay more federal taxes. I exaggerated to make a point about liberal elitism, but the success of the Sanders campaign should show how greedy Democrats are for government handouts. Free this, free that, free the crooks. Give me a break. If I'm Prez Bowers the first thing I do is get rid of the EIC and all the people that pay 0 tax dollars. An extra three bucks doesn't make a difference, unless you multiply it by 100 or some odd millions that don't pay taxes. These recession era subsidies need to be looked at for businesses, as well. If the Dems are going to run on the economy being a bowl of cherries, let's scale back the food stamps and raise taxes a couple of points. There's no other way we're going to reduce our debt.
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Aug 9, 2016 15:25:13 GMT
Red States and Corporations get the biggest handouts from the federal government. Sometimes you have to live in the west to get a sense for this, I think. Colorado is all about this image of 'frontier mentality' and independence from federal government...right up until they need subsidized water, land and fuel for the industry. Tons of "welfare cowboys" out here. I work in government and hear it all the time. Ranchers and oil/gas development types demanding that the government get out of their business, while they profit from federal land, irrigated with federal water, on a federal lease, using subsidized federal fuel...it's a joke. Do I see the other side? Absolutely. I live in Denver with my kids in Denver public school. Taxes are getting sky high, state and federal, while thousands freeload. I pay $700 a month for kindergarten in a public school, while half the kids go there for free, and my wife and I both work full-time and are far from wealthy. Then I pay hundreds for cafeteria services, even though my kids don't eat there. It's covers food for the disadvantaged kids. We have to buy 3-times the school supplies our kids need, to cover the poorer kids. Same with admin fees, car insurance, etc. etc. It's ridiculous. I sat next to one of the 'disadvantaged Dads' recently and he smelled like booze and noted being "between jobs" for the past year...
But the whole narrative about Democrats exclusively being losers or desperate for handouts is foolhardy (and I'm no Democrat). Look at who pays federal taxes and who receives federal money. The most heavily federally taxed states per capita? All blue (usually Jersey, NY, Conn, MA, CA). The biggest recipients of federal government spending? All red states. Federal taxation and spending is like a transfer of wealth from blue states to red states. We just got the list of stuff my kids have to bring the first day of school. Unreal, and this is exactly what I told my wife. We are paying for the people who cannot afford to bring this stuff, but drive much newer cars than we do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 15:48:34 GMT
Sometimes you have to live in the west to get a sense for this, I think. Colorado is all about this image of 'frontier mentality' and independence from federal government...right up until they need subsidized water, land and fuel for the industry. Tons of "welfare cowboys" out here. I work in government and hear it all the time. Ranchers and oil/gas development types demanding that the government get out of their business, while they profit from federal land, irrigated with federal water, on a federal lease, using subsidized federal fuel...it's a joke. Do I see the other side? Absolutely. I live in Denver with my kids in Denver public school. Taxes are getting sky high, state and federal, while thousands freeload. I pay $700 a month for kindergarten in a public school, while half the kids go there for free, and my wife and I both work full-time and are far from wealthy. Then I pay hundreds for cafeteria services, even though my kids don't eat there. It's covers food for the disadvantaged kids. We have to buy 3-times the school supplies our kids need, to cover the poorer kids. Same with admin fees, car insurance, etc. etc. It's ridiculous. I sat next to one of the 'disadvantaged Dads' recently and he smelled like booze and noted being "between jobs" for the past year...
But the whole narrative about Democrats exclusively being losers or desperate for handouts is foolhardy (and I'm no Democrat). Look at who pays federal taxes and who receives federal money. The most heavily federally taxed states per capita? All blue (usually Jersey, NY, Conn, MA, CA). The biggest recipients of federal government spending? All red states. Federal taxation and spending is like a transfer of wealth from blue states to red states. We just got the list of stuff my kids have to bring the first day of school. Unreal, and this is exactly what I told my wife. We are paying for the people who cannot afford to bring this stuff, but drive much newer cars than we do. They need a new show, "Food Stamp Paradise" where the dole moles try to cook and eat an entire cart of food before the next check.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 9, 2016 15:59:13 GMT
Yeah...I'm done with this thread. There's far too much "I know this guy..." stuff on both sides - I know this guy who made huge personal profits on sub-prime mortgages because even though he knew they were going to default, he also knew they were too pervasive for government NOT to bail out the companies. I know this guy who uses his welfare cheque to buy weed, then sells it back to other guys in his building to make a profit. Guy's got three big screen TVs wired to a network in his appartment and has the best Call of Duty tournaments you can imagine. I know this guy who hasn't paid income tax in 20 years because he writes off almost all of his personal expenses as business losses. I know this guy who killed a hobo and sold his body as medical supplies.
It's not about the guy you paid attention to. They're a small percentage. The logic of arguing from "I know this guy" is specious even when everyone has a story. This is why most people would be terrible in government, and why most people elected into government are terrible. There's little understanding of the issues beyond what you can express on Twitter, less understanding of the levers of government to effect change, and even less understanding of the connection between ideology, policy and programming. The system is broken in part because it's the same pool of money that funds the media that covers the politicians, the ideologues who shape the campaigns, and the legislators who continually reduce public funding to schools, eroding the education system that underpins democratic values. You don't need an "outsider" to change the system; you need someone to fix the basics. Everything else from walls to planned parenthood debates is window dressing and distraction.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Aug 9, 2016 16:13:48 GMT
Sometimes you have to live in the west to get a sense for this, I think. Colorado is all about this image of 'frontier mentality' and independence from federal government...right up until they need subsidized water, land and fuel for the industry. Tons of "welfare cowboys" out here. I work in government and hear it all the time. Ranchers and oil/gas development types demanding that the government get out of their business, while they profit from federal land, irrigated with federal water, on a federal lease, using subsidized federal fuel...it's a joke. Do I see the other side? Absolutely. I live in Denver with my kids in Denver public school. Taxes are getting sky high, state and federal, while thousands freeload. I pay $700 a month for kindergarten in a public school, while half the kids go there for free, and my wife and I both work full-time and are far from wealthy. Then I pay hundreds for cafeteria services, even though my kids don't eat there. It's covers food for the disadvantaged kids. We have to buy 3-times the school supplies our kids need, to cover the poorer kids. Same with admin fees, car insurance, etc. etc. It's ridiculous. I sat next to one of the 'disadvantaged Dads' recently and he smelled like booze and noted being "between jobs" for the past year... But the whole narrative about Democrats exclusively being losers or desperate for handouts is foolhardy (and I'm no Democrat). Look at who pays federal taxes and who receives federal money. The most heavily federally taxed states per capita? All blue (usually Jersey, NY, Conn, MA, CA). The biggest recipients of federal government spending? All red states. Federal taxation and spending is like a transfer of wealth from blue states to red states. So what do you mean by "corporate welfare?" A lot of these subsidies were given to try and jumpstart the economy, like the Wall Street/GM Bailout or energy subsidies that prioritized wind and solar power over other sources for tax dollars. How you can label policies from both parties to categorize red and blue states? Blue states are wealthier than red states because of the major cities, which is why they pay more federal taxes. I exaggerated to make a point about liberal elitism, but the success of the Sanders campaign should show how greedy Democrats are for government handouts. Free this, free that, free the crooks. Give me a break. If I'm Prez Bowers the first thing I do is get rid of the EIC and all the people that pay 0 tax dollars. An extra three bucks doesn't make a difference, unless you multiply it by 100 or some odd millions that don't pay taxes. These recession era subsidies need to be looked at for businesses, as well. If the Dems are going to run on the economy being a bowl of cherries, let's scale back the food stamps and raise taxes a couple of points. There's no other way we're going to reduce our debt. I don't really disagree with any of that, and share the fears about adding any more 'entitlement spending', mostly because it is almost impossible to undo once it's there. There are no short-term welfare type programs. Once they are in place, they stay there, and they almost always grow over time. Sanders notion of "free college" was/is idiotic. I didn't use the term 'corporate welfare'. I do, however, think that a lot of red state Republicans suffer from some major misconceptions when they proudly (eg. naively) place themselves in the small government camp. The notion that Obama has been ushering some new socialist era is kind of a joke too. The tax rate for the wealthiest Americans under Republican President Nixon was around 70%, in the early 1970's. It's half that now. The current capital gains rate on investments is about half of what it was under Reagan in 1986. Yet, all I hear about is Obama 'socialism' and the re-distribution of wealth, etc. etc. I don't see much of a difference between Democrat and Republican presidents, frankly. I think the Obama presidency has mostly featured a continuation of Bush policies (who mostly continued Clinton policies). As far as finding the culprit for our problems, I just really distrust any sweeping notion that the Left or the Right caused them. Both parties have caused the problems and both parties have the same lackluster record at trying to fix things. That said, when you rationalize that blue states pay more to the federal government just because "they are wealthier" and I think you are undermining the same conservative logic that you support for individuals. Why should the wealthy people on the coasts have to pay for the federal welfare and bailouts projects in Mississippi? Maybe certain blue states are wealthier because they do a better job governing, educating their citizens, attracting businesses, and accumulating wealth. Why do they have to send that wealth to Mississippi just because they can't teach half of their children to read and find jobs in a modern workplace? I just find the anti-government crowing of many red states to be very disingenuous, as they bite the hand that feeds them. These are the states with the highest welfare rates, most subsidies, lowest educational achievement, and they're the biggest leaches on the federal trust overall. And what are they upset about? Big government. Yeesh....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 20:47:17 GMT
So what do you mean by "corporate welfare?" A lot of these subsidies were given to try and jumpstart the economy, like the Wall Street/GM Bailout or energy subsidies that prioritized wind and solar power over other sources for tax dollars. How you can label policies from both parties to categorize red and blue states? Blue states are wealthier than red states because of the major cities, which is why they pay more federal taxes. I exaggerated to make a point about liberal elitism, but the success of the Sanders campaign should show how greedy Democrats are for government handouts. Free this, free that, free the crooks. Give me a break. If I'm Prez Bowers the first thing I do is get rid of the EIC and all the people that pay 0 tax dollars. An extra three bucks doesn't make a difference, unless you multiply it by 100 or some odd millions that don't pay taxes. These recession era subsidies need to be looked at for businesses, as well. If the Dems are going to run on the economy being a bowl of cherries, let's scale back the food stamps and raise taxes a couple of points. There's no other way we're going to reduce our debt. I don't really disagree with any of that, and share the fears about adding any more 'entitlement spending', mostly because it is almost impossible to undo once it's there. There are no short-term welfare type programs. Once they are in place, they stay there, and they almost always grow over time. Sanders notion of "free college" was/is idiotic.I didn't use the term 'corporate welfare'. I do, however, think that a lot of red state Republicans suffer from some major misconceptions when they proudly (eg. naively) place themselves in the small government camp. The notion that Obama has been ushering some new socialist era is kind of a joke too. The tax rate for the wealthiest Americans under Republican President Nixon was around 70%, in the early 1970's. It's half that now. The current capital gains rate on investments is about half of what it was under Reagan in 1986. Yet, all I hear about is Obama 'socialism' and the re-distribution of wealth, etc. etc. I don't see much of a difference between Democrat and Republican presidents, frankly. I think the Obama presidency has mostly featured a continuation of Bush policies (who mostly continued Clinton policies). As far as finding the culprit for our problems, I just really distrust any sweeping notion that the Left or the Right caused them. Both parties have caused the problems and both parties have the same lackluster record at trying to fix things. That said, when you rationalize that blue states pay more to the federal government just because "they are wealthier" and I think you are undermining the same conservative logic that you support for individuals. Why should the wealthy people on the coasts have to pay for the federal welfare and bailouts projects in Mississippi? Maybe certain blue states are wealthier because they do a better job governing, educating their citizens, attracting businesses, and accumulating wealth. Why do they have to send that wealth to Mississippi just because they can't teach half of their children to read and find jobs in a modern workplace? I just find the anti-government crowing of many red states to be very disingenuous, as they bite the hand that feeds them. These are the states with the highest welfare rates, most subsidies, lowest educational achievement, and they're the biggest leaches on the federal trust overall. And what are they upset about? Big government. Yeesh.... That's the problem with entitlements, they can't be taken back. The EIC is a prime example-a useless program that can never be repealed without damaging rhetoric about "rich getting richer, poor getting poorer." Then the violins start up and the Democrats cry in their beers to the soundtrack of Ted Kennedy bitching about reduced school lunches. My unchecked hypothesis about the second statement is that some of the red states have the same issue Maine does. They're huge states with low populations. I still stand by my major cities argument. One in thirty eight people in the US live in NYC. Manhattan has 1.6 million people alone, and I would argue that with Wall Street, not all of the residents are from New York state, for example. The rest of the country suffers from a brain drain where people move where the money is, which is almost always major cities like Chicago, LA, NYC, Miami, Boston, Houston and most of them are in blue states.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 9, 2016 22:50:08 GMT
Yeah...I'm done with this thread. There's far too much "I know this guy..." stuff on both sides - I know this guy who made huge personal profits on sub-prime mortgages because even though he knew they were going to default, he also knew they were too pervasive for government NOT to bail out the companies. I know this guy who uses his welfare cheque to buy weed, then sells it back to other guys in his building to make a profit. Guy's got three big screen TVs wired to a network in his appartment and has the best Call of Duty tournaments you can imagine. I know this guy who hasn't paid income tax in 20 years because he writes off almost all of his personal expenses as business losses. I know this guy who killed a hobo and sold his body as medical supplies.It's not about the guy you paid attention to. They're a small percentage. The logic of arguing from "I know this guy" is specious even when everyone has a story. This is why most people would be terrible in government, and why most people elected into government are terrible. There's little understanding of the issues beyond what you can express on Twitter, less understanding of the levers of government to effect change, and even less understanding of the connection between ideology, policy and programming. The system is broken in part because it's the same pool of money that funds the media that covers the politicians, the ideologues who shape the campaigns, and the legislators who continually reduce public funding to schools, eroding the education system that underpins democratic values. You don't need an "outsider" to change the system; you need someone to fix the basics. Everything else from walls to planned parenthood debates is window dressing and distraction. I know that guy too!!
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Aug 10, 2016 0:50:10 GMT
Such a classy electorate. I think you've been seduced by the Stewart Sneer, MemeMan. You should remember before you turn your nose up at working people that half of the people that vote Democrat vote for handouts. The Democratic Party is for losers. Red States and Corporations get the biggest handouts from the federal government. I'm all for a flat tax, I bet you aren't.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 10, 2016 1:33:07 GMT
Red States and Corporations get the biggest handouts from the federal government. I'm all for a flat tax, I bet you aren't. Then you don't understand, that taking money out of the hands of the middle class slows the economy down. Money in the hands of the middle class, like the 90s, gets people to spend money and they did. Supply side or "voodoo economics"', as H.W. called it, is a myth and one the biggest lies every perpetrated on the American public. A flat tax is just another tax break for the WASP elite. You go Herman "9-9-9"! Or is it 20% ? Ryan would pass that through the House in a heart beat.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 10, 2016 1:51:48 GMT
"If I'm Prez Bowers the first thing I do is get rid of the EIC and all the people that pay 0 tax dollars. An extra three bucks doesn't make a difference, unless you multiply it by 100 or some odd millions that don't pay taxes. These recession era subsidies need to be looked at for businesses, as well. If the Dems are going to run on the economy being a bowl of cherries, let's scale back the food stamps and raise taxes a couple of points. There's no other way we're going to reduce our debt."
There is a good answer, pick up people that don't pay taxes and dump them on island just for HankB. Keep off-shore tax havens for hedge fund managers and corporate CEOs plus allow 10% of the largest US companies to pay 0% in taxes. Then go ahead and raise taxes on people who make little money.
And that would lower the debt. Man I tell yah that is an outstanding idea. Fuckin brilliant! Cracker Jack economist!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 2:02:36 GMT
I'm all for a flat tax, I bet you aren't. Then you don't understand, that taking money out of the hands of the middle class slows the economy down. Money in the hands of the middle class, like the 90s, gets people to spend money and they did. Supply side or "voodoo economics"', as H.W. called it, is a myth and one the biggest lies every perpetrated on the American public. A flat tax is just another tax break for the WASP elite. You go Herman "9-9-9"! Or is it 20% ? Ryan would pass that through the House in a heart beat. Reaganomics worked the first time, raising GDP, real wages, and number of jobs created, but you can only catch lightning in a bottle once. They haven't had the same effect since, and I'm happy to see Trump back off his 25% upper tax bracket, which was beyond foolish. "Trickle down" effect works, but only when there's growth. Getting sustainable growth is the real challenge. They need to just leave the economy alone. Stop trying to manufacture growth. 9/10 govt programs to influence the economy fail.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 10, 2016 2:21:00 GMT
Then you don't understand, that taking money out of the hands of the middle class slows the economy down. Money in the hands of the middle class, like the 90s, gets people to spend money and they did. Supply side or "voodoo economics"', as H.W. called it, is a myth and one the biggest lies every perpetrated on the American public. A flat tax is just another tax break for the WASP elite. You go Herman "9-9-9"! Or is it 20% ? Ryan would pass that through the House in a heart beat. Reaganomics worked the first time, raising GDP, real wages, and number of jobs created, but you can only catch lightning in a bottle once. They haven't had the same effect since, "Trickle down" effect works, but only when there's growth. Under Reagan trade deficit grew in the 80s as did the debt, by leaps n bounds by Expanding the military by 400%.The greatest cue card reader of all-time spent more money than any tax-n-spend democrat ever did. Military jobs were added by spending money in the 80s. Fiscal conservative Reagan was not.
|
|