|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 27, 2016 11:09:27 GMT
If the stocks look good at a company I work at and the organization offers a stock buying option, I buy, I don't think the college educated white demographic, that Billary has grabbed from Dumpster, believes C-level employees will get stock for free.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 11:28:05 GMT
My favorite part was when Clinton mentioned profit sharing because C-level people shouldn't make so much money. This is America, fucknut. That's not how it works. How about mentioning raising taxes during a question about keeping companies in America? That's just warmed over socialism to keep the Bernie voters under the tent. They want to see the wealthy punished. It's perverse.
|
|
|
Post by schlich on Sept 27, 2016 14:16:18 GMT
Reagan and Clinton were better presidents and better at working with the other party.
But yeah, I agree...this congress blows. How many swings and misses on Zika funding? It's team democrat vs. team republican with absolutely no pretense of doing what's best for the country. These are some seriously horrible people. Representitive Republic my ass.
They need to be voted out, just about all of them. Many were voted out when the tea party came in. Were they any more reasonable/bi-partisan/altruistic? What makes you think the void will be filled with anything better?
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Sept 27, 2016 15:59:28 GMT
My favorite part was when Clinton mentioned profit sharing because C-level people shouldn't make so much money. This is America, fucknut. That's not how it works. How about mentioning raising taxes during a question about keeping companies in America? That's just warmed over socialism to keep the Bernie voters under the tent. They want to see the wealthy punished. It's perverse.For some perspective on that though; The wealthiest tax rate was around three times as high as it is now, in 1970 -- at 77% under Republican President Nixon. Perhaps more importantly for wealthy people, the capital gains rate was raised to 28% under Ronald Reagan in 1986 (it is currently at 15%). This isn't to play Democrats vs. Republicans, but it is pretty myopic thinking to claim that our current administration is so tough on the wealthy. Compared to the trends of the past 50 years, it is pretty damn good to be rich in America right now, and the rather drastic reduction in those wealthy tax rates don't lend themselves very well to the arguments of socialism or redistribution of wealth at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Sept 27, 2016 16:02:38 GMT
They need to be voted out, just about all of them. Many were voted out when the tea party came in. Were they any more reasonable/bi-partisan/altruistic? What makes you think the void will be filled with anything better? It is really depressing that as many in Congress are retiring, they are openly admitting (both parties) that they actively voted against bills they would support and agreed with, simply because the other party brought them forward. That is literally the exact opposite of the intention and purpose of a Congressperson in our government.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Sept 27, 2016 16:42:55 GMT
How about mentioning raising taxes during a question about keeping companies in America? That's just warmed over socialism to keep the Bernie voters under the tent. They want to see the wealthy punished. It's perverse.For some perspective on that though; The wealthiest tax rate was around three times as high as it is now, in 1970 -- at 77% under Republican President Nixon. Perhaps more importantly for wealthy people, the capital gains rate was raised to 28% under Ronald Reagan in 1986 (it is currently at 15%). This isn't to play Democrats vs. Republicans, but it is pretty myopic thinking to claim that our current administration is so tough on the wealthy. Compared to the trends of the past 50 years, it is pretty damn good to be rich in America right now, and the rather drastic reduction in those wealthy tax rates don't lend themselves very well to the arguments of socialism or redistribution of wealth at the moment. God damn do I hate shit like this. How about a full picture please? How about 91% during the years 1951-1964! Thank you three of four Democrat presidents. Yes, the capital gains tax rate was 77 percent under Nixon...for one year! It was then dropped to 70%. Shaking my head.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Sept 27, 2016 17:57:06 GMT
For some perspective on that though; The wealthiest tax rate was around three times as high as it is now, in 1970 -- at 77% under Republican President Nixon. Perhaps more importantly for wealthy people, the capital gains rate was raised to 28% under Ronald Reagan in 1986 (it is currently at 15%). This isn't to play Democrats vs. Republicans, but it is pretty myopic thinking to claim that our current administration is so tough on the wealthy. Compared to the trends of the past 50 years, it is pretty damn good to be rich in America right now, and the rather drastic reduction in those wealthy tax rates don't lend themselves very well to the arguments of socialism or redistribution of wealth at the moment. God damn do I hate shit like this. How about a full picture please? How about 91% during the years 1951-1964! Thank you three of four Democrat presidents. Yes, the capital gains tax rate was 77 percent under Nixon...for one year! It was then dropped to 70%. Shaking my head. Sure, a full picture is even better. I was going for some brevity there, with comparisons. And who cares whether you had a President from whichever party in office -- the point is that the wealthiest tax rates and cap gains rates are drastically lower on the scale in 2016 than they were in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, etc. Shake your head all you want, but don't get too dizzy. Whether you want to talk Democrats or Republicans, or Eisenhower, or Kennedy, or Nixon, or Reagan doesn't really matter. Taxes on the rich were dramatically higher than they are now, any way you slice it. Some of the recent drama over socialism, redistribution of wealth, or the rich being punished unfairly doesn't mesh very well with the evidence (although I'm not even disagreeing with henry's point that higher taxes will likely hurt the economy, not help it -- I'm just adding some perspective to the lamentations of that victim-mentality wealthy class). It's really not a bad time to be wealthy in America, if your memory lasts a few decades.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Sept 27, 2016 18:01:17 GMT
How about 91% during the years 1951-1964! Thank you three of four Democrat presidents. ^I know you know this, but Republican Dwight Eisenhower was the President from 1953 through 1961. I don't think this has much to do with political party at all, actually.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Sept 27, 2016 18:51:28 GMT
Seems to me, America has historically shared about an equal amount of heartbreak and euphoria under the 2 parties.
I just can't seem to fathom how reasonable people, on both sides of our border truly "believe" one political party makes all things right, while the other just historically fucks things up.
I watched every minute of that stupid debate last night. And the only thing stupider, was all the discussion thereafter. And it's always the same thing here. No disrespect. We have exactly the same issues.
Despite the fact Donald's an idiot, most agree government, as we know it, is a disaster. Most agree, government has no clue as to the value of a dollar, and that's really important. Most agree infastrcture is a nightmare, and special interests dictate policy, not common good. Most agree, common sense isn't that common with government. Most feel there's a much greater degree of accountibility in the private sector. Virtually no one trusts government to spend money wisely. It shouldn't be surprising that someone who yells so loudly about these things is in the hunt, no matter how incredibly fucked he is.
The 'story' here is simple. America is so fed up with politics, that an amazing percent of the population is willing to turn a blind eye to most things they absolutely hate, just in favour of a couple things, they think he'll bring to the table. I think most of his most ardent supporters would admit the baggage and bullshit he'll cause could very well undo that smattering of good....but they're resigned we can't keep going down the same road.
Hillary was poised, but as empty as Donald. She was so rehearsed, she couldn't even realize the numerous opportunities Donald continually served up throughout the evening.
Neither got into anything policy wise beyond kindergarten, and the other only fired back kindergarten generic responses about the others person.
I thought the questions, and the moderator were limp dik too, but I understand he didn't want to appear controlling.
Last night was politics as usual.
As leaders, both failed terribly. Personally, I can't stand either one, but what jumps out at me, being a junkie of this shit, is how afraid, the media and the establishment are of a Donald presidency. As they keep slugging away, all they're doing, is negating every blunder he keeps making. Hillary should be 30 points ahead of him, and it's a testament to her inability that she isn't.
If I had a vote, I'm not sure which way I'd go right now. And that pisses me off about my choices.
I see virtually nothing with Hillary. I see Donald "possibly starting' to institute some change to the good. I see him getting the job, as a clear sign to both of our countries that the crap of the last 50 years is starting to change, and government could maybe start to go in a direction it was originally meant to go. I'm not worried about the manufactured hysteria of a dik like him controlling the nuke switch. But I am worried that many countries could see his leadership as reason to put an open season on America, and that would undoubtedly cause global chaos. I also don't think there's anyone on the planet that could abuse and corrupt and manipulate power any more than he could.
So I guess we're just left with more entertainment to consume.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Sept 27, 2016 19:33:27 GMT
God damn do I hate shit like this. How about a full picture please? How about 91% during the years 1951-1964! Thank you three of four Democrat presidents. Yes, the capital gains tax rate was 77 percent under Nixon...for one year! It was then dropped to 70%. Shaking my head. Sure, a full picture is even better. I was going for some brevity there, with comparisons. And who cares whether you had a President from whichever party in office -- the point is that the wealthiest tax rates and cap gains rates are drastically lower on the scale in 2016 than they were in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, etc. Shake your head all you want, but don't get too dizzy. Whether you want to talk Democrats or Republicans, or Eisenhower, or Kennedy, or Nixon, or Reagan doesn't really matter. Taxes on the rich were dramatically higher than they are now, any way you slice it. Some of the recent drama over socialism, redistribution of wealth, or the rich being punished unfairly doesn't mesh very well with the evidence (although I'm not even disagreeing with henry's point that higher taxes will likely hurt the economy, not help it -- I'm just adding some perspective to the lamentations of that victim-mentality wealthy class). It's really not a bad time to be wealthy in America, if your memory lasts a few decades. It doesnt really matter? But you pointed to a Republican President to point out that tax rates were higher historically? Thats so disingenuous at the very least. The top rates were 94% under FDR 91% as I stated under three Democrat Presidents (and yes Republican Eisenhower) It didnt drop below 70% until the Nixon administration, which it did in his first year in office, to 50% Drops to 38.5 under Reagan. Drops to 33 under Bush I Up back to nearly 44 under Clinton Down to 38 under Bush II And back up to 44.6 under Obama. Pains a slightly different picture than your comment.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Sept 27, 2016 20:00:49 GMT
Sure, a full picture is even better. I was going for some brevity there, with comparisons. And who cares whether you had a President from whichever party in office -- the point is that the wealthiest tax rates and cap gains rates are drastically lower on the scale in 2016 than they were in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, etc. Shake your head all you want, but don't get too dizzy. Whether you want to talk Democrats or Republicans, or Eisenhower, or Kennedy, or Nixon, or Reagan doesn't really matter. Taxes on the rich were dramatically higher than they are now, any way you slice it. Some of the recent drama over socialism, redistribution of wealth, or the rich being punished unfairly doesn't mesh very well with the evidence (although I'm not even disagreeing with henry's point that higher taxes will likely hurt the economy, not help it -- I'm just adding some perspective to the lamentations of that victim-mentality wealthy class). It's really not a bad time to be wealthy in America, if your memory lasts a few decades. It doesnt really matter? But you pointed to a Republican President to point out that tax rates were higher historically? Thats so disingenuous at the very least. The top rates were 94% under FDR 91% as I stated under three Democrat Presidents (and yes Republican Eisenhower) It didnt drop below 70% until the Nixon administration, which it did in his first year in office, to 50% Drops to 38.5 under Reagan. Drops to 33 under Bush I Up back to nearly 44 under Clinton Down to 38 under Bush II And back up to 44.6 under Obama. Pains a slightly different picture than your comment. It only paints a different picture if you're missing the very basic point of it, by being reflexively political. You're reacting defensively, because you think I'm bashing Republicans. I'm not. Seriously, put your gun back in the holster and pay attention. I was responding to a comment about the taxation of the current Democratic leadership. So, to show perspective, I noted the tax rates under previous Republican leadership also. When you bristled at that comparison, I noted that it really has nothing to do with party at all, as to lead you back to the point. You're stuck on parties and Dem vs. Rep. It's driving you away from a simple, nonpartisan point. The point, again: Current tax rates for the wealthy are drastically lower than they have been in previous decades (regardless of party in the oval office). In some ways it is an odd time to worry about the wealthy being over-taxed, and the common insinuation that the taxation of the current administration is suddenly unfair to the wealthy is a little insincere, and a lot myopic. I am not in favor of raising taxes -- just in understanding where we are compared to history. I tend to agree with stevegm, on the parties being not too different at all, and that anyone who praises one while blaming the other is probably responding to fandom more than logic. I think they're practically the same and they're both full of shit. For years I have heard Democrats carry on in opposition to corporate spending in politics, Wall St. connections, institutional wealth, and the political establishment. Then they nominate the literal flag-bearer for all of that. For years I have heard Republicans call for candidates with deep foreign policy experience, class, values, respect, constitutional awareness, and someone who wasn't for the Iraq War before they were against the Iraq War. Trump is none of that. It's a joke, and the joke starts with both political parties.
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Sept 27, 2016 20:19:08 GMT
It doesnt really matter? But you pointed to a Republican President to point out that tax rates were higher historically? Thats so disingenuous at the very least. The top rates were 94% under FDR 91% as I stated under three Democrat Presidents (and yes Republican Eisenhower) It didnt drop below 70% until the Nixon administration, which it did in his first year in office, to 50% Drops to 38.5 under Reagan. Drops to 33 under Bush I Up back to nearly 44 under Clinton Down to 38 under Bush II And back up to 44.6 under Obama. Pains a slightly different picture than your comment. It only paints a different picture if you're missing the very basic point of it, by being reflexively political. You're reacting defensively, because you think I'm bashing Republicans. I'm not. Seriously, put your gun back in the holster and pay attention. I was responding to a comment about the taxation of the current Democratic leadership. So, to show perspective, I noted the tax rates under previous Republican leadership also. When you bristled at that comparison, I noted that it really has nothing to do with party at all, as to lead you back to the point. You're stuck on parties and Dem vs. Rep. It's driving you away from a simple, nonpartisan point. The point, again: Current tax rates for the wealthy are drastically lower than they have been in previous decades (regardless of party in the oval office). In some ways it is an odd time to worry about the wealthy being over-taxed, and the common insinuation that the taxation of the current administration is suddenly unfair to the wealthy is a little insincere, and a lot myopic. I am not in favor of raising taxes -- just in understanding where we are compared to history. I tend to agree with stevegm, on the parties being not too different at all, and that anyone who praises one while blaming the other is probably responding to fandom more than logic. I think they're practically the same and they're both full of shit. For years I have heard Democrats carry on in opposition to corporate spending in politics, Wall St. connections, institutional wealth, and the political establishment. Then they nominate the literal flag-bearer for all of that. For years I have heard Republicans call for candidates with deep foreign policy experience, class, values, respect, constitutional awareness, and someone who wasn't for the Iraq War before they were against the Iraq War. Trump is none of that. It's a joke, and the joke starts with both political parties. I'll start paying attention when you stop abusing "facts" to paint the picture you desire.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 20:35:27 GMT
How about mentioning raising taxes during a question about keeping companies in America? That's just warmed over socialism to keep the Bernie voters under the tent. They want to see the wealthy punished. It's perverse.For some perspective on that though; The wealthiest tax rate was around three times as high as it is now, in 1970 -- at 77% under Republican President Nixon. Perhaps more importantly for wealthy people, the capital gains rate was raised to 28% under Ronald Reagan in 1986 (it is currently at 15%). This isn't to play Democrats vs. Republicans, but it is pretty myopic thinking to claim that our current administration is so tough on the wealthy. Compared to the trends of the past 50 years, it is pretty damn good to be rich in America right now, and the rather drastic reduction in those wealthy tax rates don't lend themselves very well to the arguments of socialism or redistribution of wealth at the moment. But does that change the minority that want to see the wealthy punished? The Sanders campaign (and it would seem now The Hag) motto on how they plan on paying for these trillion dollar programs is like the company picnic. "Food and booze on the rich guys." There's a level of irrational jealousy towards the wealthy.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Sept 27, 2016 20:46:36 GMT
I'll start paying attention when you stop abusing "facts" to paint the picture you desire. I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not...? Maybe these conversations are too volatile for you, if you think I'm taking some side here that you find objectionable. You seem to be objecting to facts themselves. The tax rate is something we know -- it isn't disputable. Seriously, read through this thread again, because I think you're responding to something else that you're upset about, and mis-directing it at me. We're not debating opinions here. We're looking at the actual numbers for tax rates. Which part do you disagree with -- that tax rates and cap gains used to be higher than they are now? That Eisenhower was President from 1953-61? What facts are wrong? Maybe focus on which facts you disagree with, instead of guessing at what I desire, and getting upset about it. I never imagined that noting historical tax rates would get anyone upset, but this is a weird political climate for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Sept 27, 2016 20:53:23 GMT
For some perspective on that though; The wealthiest tax rate was around three times as high as it is now, in 1970 -- at 77% under Republican President Nixon. Perhaps more importantly for wealthy people, the capital gains rate was raised to 28% under Ronald Reagan in 1986 (it is currently at 15%). This isn't to play Democrats vs. Republicans, but it is pretty myopic thinking to claim that our current administration is so tough on the wealthy. Compared to the trends of the past 50 years, it is pretty damn good to be rich in America right now, and the rather drastic reduction in those wealthy tax rates don't lend themselves very well to the arguments of socialism or redistribution of wealth at the moment. But does that change the minority that want to see the wealthy punished? The Sanders campaign (and it would seem now The Hag) motto on how they plan on paying for these trillion dollar programs is like the company picnic. "Food and booze on the rich guys." There's a level of irrational jealousy towards the wealthy. Yeah, I think Sanders campaigned on that concept to some extent, and it was actually more sincere than Hillary saying it (since she's accepting so much wealth and establishment $$). Again, my point was really just that when our wealthiest citizens slip into the victim-mentality scenario of being so horribly overtaxed, they could take a quick glance at what their wealthy parent's paid in taxes and not feel quite so oppressed. Hammering the uber-wealthy with taxes was a much more accepted thing 30-40 years ago than it is today, no matter who was in charge.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Sept 27, 2016 21:15:45 GMT
I don't know why this tax thing is such an issue. Seems to me, both of them were idiots on that issue. There is no political issue whatsoever regarding higher taxes for those "earning" the most. No economic downside whatsoever. I believe America is well below it's contemporaries in taxing high earners. Taxing business, is a whole other story. Those 2 dopes put wealthy Americans in the same category as business. Well thought tax advantages aimed at growing business, growing employment, have outstanding potential. If Hillary had a brain, she'd have gone down that road somehow. If she was at all on the ball, she'd have pounced on Dumbo, when he basically admitted he paid little in taxes by saying he was "smart". Does "Making America Great Again" mean billionaires pay no personal federal tax??? Is that the kind of "smart"....... hard working, struggling, middle class voters think we need more of?? If Donald Trump is basically paying no taxes, he's obviously doing it legally, and that's as great an example of government ineptitude, poor judgement and stupidity, is there could possibly be. It's exactly, the the kind of government nonsense, that those most attracted to him, expect to see straightened out the day after election. He's supposed to fix government. But instead of being a leader on this horseshit....he's bragging. And the other one is too stupid to really take note. Instead, she's trying to remember how many many times per minute her handlers thought she should smile, or what she should be doing with her hands. Which candidate has railed on tirelessly for months about "so many people screwing us over, by not paying their fair share". That's about the only salient point he's made, and now it appears he's top of the list.
How in the world can something as old and antiquated as our tax system, still work properly. Nothing else does. Everything about taxation should have been turned upside down and inside out decades ago. But those running the system have it gamed, and they like it the way it is.
If Trump doesn't come out with a policy against the very thing he's taking absolute advantage of...nothing else he's talking about has any credibility.
So that leaves him with no credibility whatsoever, and Hillary marginally better.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 27, 2016 21:45:29 GMT
How about 91% during the years 1951-1964! Thank you three of four Democrat presidents. ^I know you know this, but Republican Dwight Eisenhower was the President from 1953 through 1961. I don't think this has much to do with political party at all, actually. The Rebublican party back then was so diiferent. Wanted and allowed bills to be passed. Wanted to see bridges and highways repaired. Eisenhower Republicans would be very welcome by me in Washington.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 21:49:07 GMT
But does that change the minority that want to see the wealthy punished? The Sanders campaign (and it would seem now The Hag) motto on how they plan on paying for these trillion dollar programs is like the company picnic. "Food and booze on the rich guys." There's a level of irrational jealousy towards the wealthy. Yeah, I think Sanders campaigned on that concept to some extent, and it was actually more sincere than Hillary saying it (since she's accepting so much wealth and establishment $$). Again, my point was really just that when our wealthiest citizens slip into the victim-mentality scenario of being so horribly overtaxed, they could take a quick glance at what their wealthy parent's paid in taxes and not feel quite so oppressed. Hammering the uber-wealthy with taxes was a much more accepted thing 30-40 years ago than it is today, no matter who was in charge. I don't have a problem with raising the tax rate on the elites 3-5% IF we pass reduced corporate taxes. It's just a shame that people and this country can't evaluate a tax plan by its growth potential (like people have here done on both sides) instead of "tax cuts for the rich" or the more insidious "he's cutting taxes for himself!" The one thing I don't cotton to is all this nonsense about the debate moderators. Both sides are playing this bullshit. I thought Lester Holt did a decent job. He stayed out of the way. He fact checked Trump only on statement where he was demonstrably wrong. And issues like the Iraq War and the Birther Conspiracy that aren't at all relevant. Candidates need to learn how to handle themselves in front of the moderator, like the Great Newt Gingrich in this clip.* youtu.be/cj7OHEnz9KE?t=15s*but seriously, has the Republican Party accomplished a thing since Newt hung it up after being disgraced?
|
|
|
Post by sportsnut on Sept 27, 2016 22:31:34 GMT
I'll start paying attention when you stop abusing "facts" to paint the picture you desire. I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not...? Maybe these conversations are too volatile for you, if you think I'm taking some side here that you find objectionable. You seem to be objecting to facts themselves. The tax rate is something we know -- it isn't disputable. Seriously, read through this thread again, because I think you're responding to something else that you're upset about, and mis-directing it at me. We're not debating opinions here. We're looking at the actual numbers for tax rates. Which part do you disagree with -- that tax rates and cap gains used to be higher than they are now? That Eisenhower was President from 1953-61? What facts are wrong? Maybe focus on which facts you disagree with, instead of guessing at what I desire, and getting upset about it. I never imagined that noting historical tax rates would get anyone upset, but this is a weird political climate for sure. I'm not upset Fletch, not at all. I find your comments and not backing down to be completely amusing. I'm used to being surrounded by people that do what you did. Im a conservative in Massachusetts! lol You tried to make a point but I didnt take it for granted because you put a statistic next to it. That's all. I dont understand why you're being deliberately coy about mentioning "The wealthiest tax rate was around three times as high as it is now, in 1970 -- at 77% under Republican President Nixon." and claiming not "to be partisan". Why mention 1970? Why mention that it was "Republican" Richard Nixon? Why not mention 1944 when the tax was 17% higher under a liberal President? No need to be coy Roy.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Sept 27, 2016 23:51:18 GMT
Man, what I would give to be able to vote for Newt in November. He looks like Teddy Roosevelt compared to these 2 ass-hats.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 28, 2016 1:28:52 GMT
Yeah, I think Sanders campaigned on that concept to some extent, and it was actually more sincere than Hillary saying it (since she's accepting so much wealth and establishment $$). Again, my point was really just that when our wealthiest citizens slip into the victim-mentality scenario of being so horribly overtaxed, they could take a quick glance at what their wealthy parent's paid in taxes and not feel quite so oppressed. Hammering the uber-wealthy with taxes was a much more accepted thing 30-40 years ago than it is today, no matter who was in charge. I don't have a problem with raising the tax rate on the elites 3-5% IF we pass reduced corporate taxes. It's just a shame that people and this country can't evaluate a tax plan by its growth potential (like people have here done on both sides) instead of "tax cuts for the rich" or the more insidious "he's cutting taxes for himself!" *but seriously, has the Republican Party accomplished a thing since Newt hung it up after being disgraced? NopeCutting taxes for the rich nor keeping corporate taxes low does not lead to US economic growth. What Reaganites always forget, their revisionist history, that Reagan expended the military by 400%. That created a truck load of jobs, millions. Reagan didn't revamp the tax code until 1986. It did one thing for the the wealthy, more money to buy elections.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Sept 28, 2016 1:55:34 GMT
www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/wall-street-bank-whose-donors-back-clinton-say-election-will-likely-preserve"and for all the candidates pledging to upend the status quo, one of Wall Street’s largest power players says that the most likely outcome is almost no real policy changes — but there may be a higher-than-normal chance of a recession. In a paper timed to the first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Citigroup told its clients that “the probability of the status quo continuing for U.S. politics seems high.” The paper — produced by the bank unit that works specifically with ultra-wealthy clients — also said that “a consensus of forecasters currently puts the probability of a Clinton victory at 68 percent,” and that most expect Republicans to retain control of the U.S. House." Fuck you FED and fuck you Wall St!
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Sept 28, 2016 2:09:44 GMT
Trump blew it. While he didn't have any whoppers (aside from the odd Sean Hannity comments that obscured an earlier interview in Esquire) he didn't make a convincing case for himself or against The Hag. He needed to let Hillary speak instead of making the debate about a referendum against him. The Hag is old hat with a lousy record and is trusted less than Bigfoot is believed. If you look at the debate like dynamics in music, he was the loudest and most forceful defending himself, which isn't good. For some reason he didn't highlight his exceptional tax rate for companies that repatriate money. Or the Clinton Foundation. On the other hand, The Hag wins on points only. I don't think anybody is more enthusiastic about her now than earlier. She keeps trying to show people "the Real Donald Trump" which failed 16 candidates in the primary. She tried to land a few zingers that nobody even realized were jokes and showed little more than vacant rhetoric too tired to even include promises. The election is a week later and she's an early snowstorm from losing Michigan or Wisconsin. Trump had a chance to close the deal and he settled for a call back. The call back bus never comes... I saw a bit of her campaigning today and understandably, it looked like a victory lap. She had a glide in her stride. Last night I thought Trump began in pretty good form when he was suggesting the States was outsmarted by its partners in trade while linking Hillary Clinton as a member of the entrenched political establishment. Trump hit a slippery slope after that. He was all over the road with his responses. Still, President Obama didn't perform well in his first go against Mitt Romney in 2012, supposedly giving the Republican nominee some juice heading into the next one. We saw the President up his game in the following match-ups. I'm not comparing Trump to Obama as a master debater but for those supporting him, I'm just suggesting the possibility Trump can improve for the next set-to and perhaps begin to draw in folks who haven't yet made up their minds.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Sept 28, 2016 2:12:25 GMT
I don't have a problem with raising the tax rate on the elites 3-5% IF we pass reduced corporate taxes. It's just a shame that people and this country can't evaluate a tax plan by its growth potential (like people have here done on both sides) instead of "tax cuts for the rich" or the more insidious "he's cutting taxes for himself!" *but seriously, has the Republican Party accomplished a thing since Newt hung it up after being disgraced? NopeCutting taxes for the rich nor keeping corporate taxes low does not lead to US economic growth. What Reaganites always forget, their revisionist history, that Reagan expended the military by 400%. That created a truck load of jobs, millions. Reagan didn't revamp the tax code until 1986. It did one thing for the the wealthy, more money to buy elections. of course cutting personal tax on the rich doesn't create jobs. it just circumvents the whole premise of taxation as we know it. smart well thought out tax incentives though, should absolutely spur economic growth.
in order to sensibly talk about taxation, we can't look back at any model that should be re instituted. it's got to be rethought from the ground up. imo, any inference of "trickle down economics", is more partisan dodgeball.
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Sept 28, 2016 3:40:12 GMT
Taxing people more for making more is bullshit. Punishing success is a load of crap.
Get me Steve Forbes in office and let's go Flat Tax.
|
|