New Hampshire Primary today

[FillJackson]

Polls close at 7PM.

Trump should win (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html), does Rubio drop out of second based on the past week?


Sanders should win. NH is one of his best states, a lot of the state is within Vermont media markets, so they have known Sanders for a long time. Will he go by double digits?


Between Feb 20th and the 27th, there are four election in Nevada and South Carolina because they don't do the Democrats and the Republicans on the same day.

Very little polling done in NV
Clinton up by 20
Trump with good lead, but only one recent poll.

SC
Trump up 16
Clinton up 30

[FillJackson]

Then March 1st is Super Tuesday.

Tuesday, March 1
Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arkansas Colorado Georgia Massachusetts Minnesota North Dakota Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Vermont Virginia Wyoming

[FillJackson]

There's too many candidates to stop Trump. Who quits before March 1?

There's still going to be at least 5 candidates.

There's going to be enormous pressure on folks to drop out.

[FillJackson]

There's too many candidates to stop Trump. Who quits before March 1?

There's still going to be at least 5 candidates.

There's going to be enormous pressure on folks to drop out.

early news out of NH
http://www.theonion.com/article/demoralized-jeb-bush-succumbs-new-hampshire-heroin-52327?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Pic:1:Default

[Derka]

Hillary is already looking past NH if she's smart; she doesn't have a chance.

Same for any Republican polling above 10%, again if they're smart. Let Trump hang around in NH with Christie and Kasich while Fiorina should be looking to drop out soon. Rubio is already getting attacked in South Carolina; that's going to be a big state in the Rubio/Cruz drama.

[dude77]

independents trying to choose between sanders and trump what lol .. and they said on cnn there's a shitload of them .. like 40% are independents

[He Strong]

Go Bernie!

[dude77]

any live trackers for nh ? like we had for iowa

[TheMan]

Feel the Bern :rockon:

[Patrick Chewing]

Go Bernie!


Jeff has to do something about these ridiculous alt's. 264 posts and already has the highest rep allowed.

[dude77]

trump dominating .. already projected as nh winner :applause:




sanders wins nh as well

[BasedTom]

chris christie needs to get diabetes and **** off

[Draz]

Go Bernie!
:applause: :applause: :applause: :pimp:

[Trollsmasher]

Trump dominating

hope Cruz and Rubo don't make it to 10%

[DonDadda59]

Expected results. Nice showing by Kasich, and Bush lives to fight another day.

[Draz]

Bernie beat Hilldog :o
Trump won :o

[BasedTom]

Bernie beat Hilldog :o
Trump won :o
neither are remotely surprising results

[zoom17]

So this trims the republican candidates to 4 or 5.

[bladefd]

Fiorina, Christie both out after tonight.. Carson is next.

[Trollsmasher]

https://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr02/2013/4/2/5/anigif_enhanced-buzz-1289-1364895187-2.gif

[Draz]

neither are remotely surprising results
True.. But I'm still in shock Trump is actually getting support :lol

[TheMan]

Some are already saying that Kasich will come in second in the GOP race, followed by Jeb! in third and Marco Roboto dropping to fourth. If that does come to fruition, probably signals the begining of the end for Marco (and we could thank NJ Crisp Crispy :lol ).

[DonDadda59]

Some are already saying that Kasich will come in second in the GOP race, followed by Jeb! in third and Marco Roboto dropping to fourth. If that does come to fruition, probably signals the begining of the end for Marco (and we could thank NJ Crisp Crispy :lol ).

Ricky Rubio the ultimate choke artist. Get that man a bottle of poland spring.

[9erempiree]

Trump.:pimp:

Where are all these people that said he hand no chance?

2nd in Iowa and leading New Hampshire....but...but...he has no chance.

[zoom17]

Trump.:pimp:

Where are all these people that said he hand no chance?

2nd in Iowa and leading New Hampshire....but...but...he has no chance.

Relax he was going to win New Hampshire no matter what.

[oh the horror]

That's how bad the GOP are perceived....Donald Trump is blowing away their candidates.

[Nick Young]

Ricky Rubio the ultimate choke artist. Get that man a bottle of poland spring.
Yeah, Rubio pulled a Newton. Thank you New Jersey guy for exposing him to the world, we would be screwed if Rubes managed to Obama his way in to the presidency.

[Cactus-Sack]

That's how bad Politicians are perceived....Donald Trump is blowing away their candidates.
Fixed for accuracy

[oh the horror]

Fixed for accuracy




Well consider this as well, Bernie Sanders is the "underdog outsider" and Clinton is the staple of the party and even she's having a tough time. So this to me is the very beginning of Americans disillusionment with politicians. It's always been a negative concerning perception but this is beginning to manifest itself in the polls

[knickballer]

Well consider this as well, Bernie Sanders is the "underdog outsider" and Clinton is the staple of the party and even she's having a tough time. So this to me is the very beginning of Americans disillusionment with politicians. It's always been a negative concerning perception but this is beginning to manifest itself in the polls

Hopefully, it's an end of an era.

Hilary has something like $160 million dollars raised so far and Jeb has something like $150 million raised so far. Jeb has around $120m of his money raised by Super Pacs and yet this guy is nearly in last place and getting abused by Trump who has no political experience..

It's hilarious because the media and "elite" are trying desperately to avoid a Sanders - Trump finale but they're adding to fire as people are fed up with the media's biases in trying to hand pick the winners..

Alot of credit goes out to Ron Paul as he was one of the first candidates to be anti-establishment. America wasn't ready for him at the time and branded him as some sort of lunatic. It would be interesting to see how he would of done this election..

[zoom17]

Hopefully, it's an end of an era.

Hilary has something like $160 million dollars raised so far and Jeb has something like $150 million raised so far. Jeb has around $120m of his money raised by Super Pacs and yet this guy is nearly in last place and getting abused by Trump who has no political experience..

It's hilarious because the media and "elite" are trying desperately to avoid a Sanders - Trump finale but they're adding to fire as people are fed up with the media's biases in trying to hand pick the winners..

Alot of credit goes out to Ron Paul as he was one of the first candidates to be anti-establishment. America wasn't ready for him at the time and branded him as some sort of lunatic. It would be interesting to see how he would of done this election..

Still the same.

[senelcoolidge]

Fox, the leftist, and republican good ole boys hate Trump. They can't stand that he's winning. Tells you something. You know they will do anything to derail him. Sad even people in his own party. I watched Fox and you could see how some of their people were trying to hide their anger..haha.

[9erempiree]

Trump may surpass even Hilary.

[Take Your Lumps]

Nice showing for Trump but he had a ton of help with such a watered down field of 4 guys fighting for 2nd place.

Sanders beat the shit out of Clinton 1 on 1.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Trump may surpass even Hilary.

He consistently loses to Hillary and Sanders in GE polls.

Truth is, Trump and Cruz present the easiest paths to the WH for the Dems.

[Jameerthefear]

kasich doesn't seem half bad imo. i favor him over any GOP candidates

[Terahite]

Trump will rape all opposition.

See you at the finish line ******s. :lol

https://media.giphy.com/media/l41lPd4rlOlw1lRqU/giphy.gif

[DonDadda59]

Bernie making crazy promises he can't possibly keep. Wall Street's gonna pay for your College. Him and the Donald are two peas in a pod.

[oh the horror]

Bernie making crazy promises he can't possibly keep. Wall Street's gonna pay for your College. Him and the Donald are two peas in a pod.



Yeah. It's all so ridiculous to watch.

[Patrick Chewing]

Bernie making crazy promises he can't possibly keep. Wall Street's gonna pay for your College. Him and the Donald are two peas in a pod.


Glad you're not buying into that crap. Wall Street is going to pay for your college tuition and pay the salaries of every employee of every college across the nation?? Who buys this crap?? :oldlol:

[DonDadda59]

Glad you're not buying into that crap. Wall Street is going to pay for your college tuition and pay the salaries of every employee of every college across the nation?? Who buys this crap?? :oldlol:

Mexico's gonna pay for my College tuition. :pimp:

[Patrick Chewing]

Mexico's gonna pay for my College tuition. :pimp:


Speak of the Devil, Ford is building a plant in Mexico:

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/ford-move-production-mexico-report-211300016.html

Once again, the United States stays losing. I have a feeling Ford is pulling for Bernie Sanders.


Vote Trump.

[Nick Young]

Fox, the leftist, and republican good ole boys hate Trump. They can't stand that he's winning. Tells you something. You know they will do anything to derail him. Sad even people in his own party. I watched Fox and you could see how some of their people were trying to hide their anger..haha.
That's true. If lefties and fox news both hate you, chances are you're doing something right.

[UK2K]

Bernie making crazy promises he can't possibly keep. Wall Street's gonna pay for your College. Him and the Donald are two peas in a pod.
Bernie promised the world and Trump said a lot without saying anything at all.

Both speeches were weird.

[bladefd]

What does Trump bring to the table? Fool does not even believe in climate change and grew up spoiled. Trump is not going to win presidency. Fox News and establishment will make sure of it.

edit: he does have hot daughters though and wife. He does bring that to the table.

[DeuceWallaces]

Watching Kasich and Rubio give victory speeches for coming in 2nd and 3rd is surreal.

[knickballer]

What does Trump bring to the table? Fool does not even believe in climate change and grew up spoiled. Trump is not going to win presidency. Fox News and establishment will make sure of it.

edit: he does have hot daughters though and wife. He does bring that to the table.

Trump doesn't give AF about climate change. He's only spitting out the anti climate change rhetoric to gain votes among conservatives and to appeal to the republican party. The same way he suddenly became "religious" to try and get the christian/evangelist vote, trump never touched the bible in his life and when people ask him about his favorite verse he says shit like they all are.

I'm pretty sure he's like this with every talking point. Immigration? I'm pretty sure this guy hired a shit ton of immigrants and even illegal immigrants back in the day but he's all of a sudden anti-immigrant to get the votes.

He'll say whatever to get any vote.

[ThePhantomCreep]

That's true. If lefties and fox news both hate you, chances are you're doing something right.

Fox and the neo-cons hate Trump because they know he'd smashed in a general election, turning the GOP into a laughingstock in the process.

[Dave3]

Watching Kasich and Rubio give victory speeches for coming in 2nd and 3rd is surreal.
Both were pretty well deserved I think. Rubio coming in within a percent of Trump in Iowa after the aggregated polling had them 13% apart.

[He Strong]

Yay Bernie!

[bladefd]

As an independent myself, I gained respect for Kasich. He seems like a very good human being with good intentions. He is the only Republican I would not mind.

[DeuceWallaces]

Both were pretty well deserved I think. Rubio coming in within a percent of Trump in Iowa after the aggregated polling had them 13% apart.

Victory speeches are only deserved in the event of a victory.

[Micku]

Bernie making crazy promises he can't possibly keep. Wall Street's gonna pay for your College. Him and the Donald are two peas in a pod.

He's planning on taxing the rich in general. It might not work, but we'll see. I read somewhere that economist think the plan is brilliant, but I dunno. That could be just one because I read others that say it's pretty crazy. I have to read up more on that. Here is Sanders tax plan in comparison to Trump and the current plan we're on right now:

The far left is the current law. The middle is Trump's plan. The far right is Sanders plan.
Income Levels
$0-$18,550~ 10% 0% 10%
$18,550-$75,300~ 15% 10% 15%
$75,300-$151,900~ 25% 10%/20% 25%
$151,900-$231,450~ 28% 20%/25% 28%
$231,450-$413,350~ 33% 25% 37%
$413,350-$466,950~ 35% 25% 37%
$466,960-$500,000~ 39.6% 25% 37%
$500,000-$2,000,000~ 39.6% 25% 43%
$2,000,000-$10,000,000~ 39.6% 25% 48%
$10,000,000 – Howard Stern 39.6% 25% 52%


http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2016/01/17/bernie-sanders-releases-tax-plan-nations-rich-recoil-in-horror/#3a4291707340

The rich is gonn'a get tax hard. I don't know that much economics to say whatever it's a good or bad thing. So, you guys tell me. I did read that Sanders tax plan is the highest it's been since the 80s. It was really high in the 40s-early 60s tho.

[FillJackson]

According to this http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/republicans-new-hampshire-primary-219007
Clinton has 15 delegates and Sanders 13. Wtf?

[Micku]

Fox and the neo-cons hate Trump because they know he'd smashed in a general election, turning the GOP into a laughingstock in the process.

Trump is a entertaining mofo tho. The dude is a real WWE heel up there. He needs to steal Vince McMahon theme song.

NO CHANCE!


According to this http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/republicans-new-hampshire-primary-219007
Clinton has 15 delegates and Sanders 13. Wtf?

It's 13 to 9 according to google. Correct me if I'm wrong, but NH only has 24 Delegates? That's 28 from what you describe.

[NumberSix]

The rich is gonn'a get tax hard. I don't know that much economics to say whatever it's a good or bad thing. So, you guys tell me. I did read that Sanders tax plan is the highest it's been since the 80s. It was really high in the 40s-early 60s tho.
You know what happens when you tax the rich too much? They leave and you get nothing.

You know what happens when you tax business too much? They leave, you get nothing and all the jobs go to some other country.

"Tax the people that can afford it" sounds workable in theory, but the reality is that people have other options. There are lots of nice places in the world to live or put your businesses headquarters.

[Patrick Chewing]

Taxing rich people ungodly amounts prevents other people from becoming rich.

And if the rich get taxed, how do I get that money? Does it go directly into my bank account?

I have a better idea! How about making it easier for me to become a rich person by lowering corporate taxes so that big companies stay in the U.S. and can afford to hire Americans!

[FillJackson]

It's 13 to 9 according to google. Correct me if I'm wrong, but NH only has 24 Delegates? That's 28 from what you describe.
This is what Politico is saying with the correct link.

New Hampshire
Presidential Primaries, February 9, 2016
Detailed Results
Democratic
81.3% Reporting
Delegates Allocated: 28/32
Delegates
Winner B. Sanders......59.9%.............13
H. Clinton ...............38.5%...............15



Perhaps they are counting superdelegates and Clinton won those?

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/new-hampshire-2016-democrats-218948#ixzz3zjoywPTl

[FillJackson]

Yes, they are counting superdelegates


The delegate count includes delegates allocated during an election in addition to national party committee members and in the case of the Democratic Party, super delegates.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/new-hampshire-2016-democrats-218948#ixzz3zjpWbyhz

[NumberSix]

Taxing rich people ungodly amounts prevents other people from becoming rich.

And if the rich get taxed, how do I get that money? Does it go directly into my bank account?

I have a better idea! How about making it easier for me to become a rich person by lowering corporate taxes so that big companies stay in the U.S. and can afford to hire Americans!
Lefty morons seem to really hate the idea of people having a lot of extra money in the bank. What these lefty morons don't seem to understand is, that's where investment comes from. If nobody has enough extra money that they can afford to risk investing, then where the hell are investment going to come from? Who the hell is going to put up the money to start new businesses, expand businesses or invest in new developments?

Have you never noticed that nothing is invented in these dumbass socialist countries? The only people who can succeed are giant multinational corporations who are already swimming in money.

[FillJackson]

Click the link it's worth it.

https://vine.co/v/i1E5LTtKwgP

[ThePhantomCreep]

[QUOTE=Micku]He's planning on taxing the rich in general. It might not work, but we'll see. I read somewhere that economist think the plan is brilliant, but I dunno. That could be just one because I read others that say it's pretty crazy. I have to read up more on that. Here is Sanders tax plan in comparison to Trump and the current plan we're on right now:

The far left is the current law. The middle is Trump's plan. The far right is Sanders plan.
Income Levels
$0-$18,550~ 10% 0% 10%
$18,550-$75,300~ 15% 10% 15%
$75,300-$151,900~ 25% 10%/20% 25%
$151,900-$231,450~ 28% 20%/25% 28%
$231,450-$413,350~ 33% 25% 37%
$413,350-$466,950~ 35% 25% 37%
$466,960-$500,000~ 39.6% 25% 37%
$500,000-$2,000,000~ 39.6% 25% 43%
$2,000,000-$10,000,000~ 39.6% 25% 48%
$10,000,000

[DonDadda59]

[QUOTE=Micku]He's planning on taxing the rich in general. It might not work, but we'll see. I read somewhere that economist think the plan is brilliant, but I dunno. That could be just one because I read others that say it's pretty crazy. I have to read up more on that. Here is Sanders tax plan in comparison to Trump and the current plan we're on right now:

The far left is the current law. The middle is Trump's plan. The far right is Sanders plan.
Income Levels
$0-$18,550~ 10% 0% 10%
$18,550-$75,300~ 15% 10% 15%
$75,300-$151,900~ 25% 10%/20% 25%
$151,900-$231,450~ 28% 20%/25% 28%
$231,450-$413,350~ 33% 25% 37%
$413,350-$466,950~ 35% 25% 37%
$466,960-$500,000~ 39.6% 25% 37%
$500,000-$2,000,000~ 39.6% 25% 43%
$2,000,000-$10,000,000~ 39.6% 25% 48%
$10,000,000

[FillJackson]

There are two types of Republicans--millionaires and suckers. The rise of "Trump the Rebel" proves it.

Trump's anti-establishment cred = a projected $10 trillion in debt + a massive tax cut for the wealthy.

Same old GOP shit.In particular a massive tax cut for his kids.

[DonDadda59]

There are two types of Republicans--millionaires and suckers. The rise of "Trump the Rebel" proves it.

Trump's anti-establishment cred = a projected $10 trillion in debt + a massive tax cut for the wealthy.

Same old GOP shit.

Yup, Trump's plan is just trickle down economics/Dubya Bush's economic plan on steroids. Nothing good would ever come from it (Unless you count the Donald and his buddies getting massive tax cuts as good). All the analysis of his proposals lead to the same outcome- another Great Depression.

[9erempiree]

Trump's tax reform is very consistent with what he wants for America. I don't have a problem with his tax reform as it would save me more money than what it is currently and I came from a family that owned multiple businesses.

I am all for hardworking people to keep their hard earn money. Trump is anti-establishment and has mentioned how dumb the people at Washington is at wasting our tax paying money.

This is probably his way of letting the American people keep their money till he finds out how to better spend our tax dollars.

While this tax reform policy has a potential to raise the deficit but I believe Trump's skills is in trade. I believe that is how he will cut make up for it. Good trade policies and reduced government spending.

Vote with your dollars. Don't know why people are upset that he is cutting taxes across the board. Come on people....you really like the current structure?:hammerhead:

He is most likely raising deductions...we will start to feel our pockets feeling heavier and more numbers in the bank.

[9erempiree]

All the analysis of his proposals lead to the same outcome- another Great Depression.

You're a good comedian but not so much when it comes to real life issues, politics or the economy.

In b4 meme or some stupid song.:D

Anyways, I would like to see who these analysis are? Fundamentally, they would not say what you have claimed.

[DonDadda59]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Immigration:


A 2015 study by the American Action Forum, a conservative pro-immigration group, estimates the federal government would have to spend roughly $400 billion to $600 billion to deport 11.3 million undocumented immigrants and prevent future unlawful entry into the U.S. over a 20 year time period.

In order to implement the plan, the study says, each immigrant would have to be apprehended, detained, legally processed, and transported to his or her home country.

Mass deportation will burden the economy, the report goes on. Removing all undocumented immigrants would cause the labor force to shrink by 6.4%. As a result, 20 years from now the economy would be nearly 6% or $1.6 trillion smaller than it would be if the immigrants are allowed to stay.

While this impact would be found throughout the economy, the agriculture, construction, retail and hospitality sectors would be especially strongly affected, the report indicates.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaestevez/2015/09/14/trumps-plan-to-round-up-and-deport-11-million-immigrants-within-24-months-prohibitively-expensive/#2715e4857a0b73746d082b1e


All his other bullshit:

[INDENT]Economists savage Trump's economic agenda
Raising tariffs and deporting millions of people will drive up prices and cause recession, experts assert.

Many economists say Donald Trump

[ThePhantomCreep]

Trump's tax reform is very consistent with what he wants for America. I don't have a problem with his tax reform as it would save me more money than what it is currently and I came from a family that owned multiple businesses.

I am all for hardworking people to keep their hard earn money. Trump is anti-establishment and has mentioned how dumb the people at Washington is at wasting our tax paying money.

This is probably his way of letting the American people keep their money till he finds out how to better spend our tax dollars.

While this tax reform policy has a potential to raise the deficit but I believe Trump's skills is in trade. I believe that is how he will cut make up for it. Good trade policies and reduced government spending.

Vote with your dollars. Don't know why people are upset that he is cutting taxes across the board. Come on people....you really like the current structure?:hammerhead:

He is most likely raising deductions...we will start to feel our pockets feeling heavier and more numbers in the bank.

He could cut safety net programs to zero, it still wouldn't offset the massive amounts of lost revenues his tax plan would cause.

Keep in mind that Mein Trumpf wants a "strong military", and military buildups don't come cheap.

Military buildup + massive tax cuts + removing 8 million illegals from the labor force + large tariffs on goods from Mexico and China = Trump is an idiot.

[9erempiree]

Politico is your source for economic education?

Well, of course it is.

He doesnt even have a real proposal you dolt. You cant do economic analysis on policy proposals that dont exist. Did you google how much the mexicans are going to give us for the wall too?

They don't use logic or rationale.

You cannot analyze something that has not happened but I can analyze how this proposal would benefit me and people of ISH, who I am assuming are middle class to upper.

They should just focus on how much money they will be saving and all the money they will be saving as they work their butts off to become rich.

[DonDadda59]

Politico is your source for economic education?

Used Forbes too, dunce. Did you even read what I posted? What does it matter which publication posted the economists' findings?


He doesnt even have a real proposal you dolt. You cant do economic analysis on policy proposals that dont exist. Did you google how much the mexicans are going to give us for the wall too?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

Donald Trump on his tariff plan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0TDHWMFkGM)



Go to sleep bruh. These Ls you're taking will heal by the time you wake up, hopefully. I'll be praying for your recovery.

[DonDadda59]

You literally just posted a video where trump backtracks on something he said a week before.
:wtf:
But yeah, tons of solid consistent proposals.....

Shhhhhh. No more talk now. Sleeeeeeep.

[Micku]

Lefty morons seem to really hate the idea of people having a lot of extra money in the bank. What these lefty morons don't seem to understand is, that's where investment comes from. If nobody has enough extra money that they can afford to risk investing, then where the hell are investment going to come from? Who the hell is going to put up the money to start new businesses, expand businesses or invest in new developments?

Have you never noticed that nothing is invented in these dumbass socialist countries? The only people who can succeed are giant multinational corporations who are already swimming in money.

Heh. I read most Americans in general are pretty bad at that anyway.

Let me get it:
[quote]
[B]Approximately 62% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their savings accounts and 21% don

[NumberSix]

Used Forbes too, dunce. Did you even read what I posted? What does it matter which publication posted the economists' findings?



https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

Donald Trump on his tariff plan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0TDHWMFkGM)



Go to sleep bruh. These Ls you're taking will heal by the time you wake up, hopefully. I'll be praying for your recovery.
Trump is not going to put a tariff on Chinese products. It's bargaining leverage. It's not going to actually happen. The idea is to get China to remove their tariff on American products, which China would obviously do.

[NumberSix]

Heh. I read most Americans in general are pretty bad at that anyway.

Let me get it:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-have-less-than-1000-in-savings-2015-10-06

Of course the older generation is a bit better at that, but a lot of Americans like living on the edge or just broke.


Anyway, I don't know what tax plan is the best because I have heard mixed reports. From what little I can remember from my economic class, is that both a high tax or a low tax system could work, but it depends on well our advancement of technology flowing well at the time to create new jobs. So, I don't know if any of this is good because aren't there examples throughout USA history of both working?
What you want is money in the hands of the people, not the governments pocket.

[bladefd]

Lefty morons seem to really hate the idea of people having a lot of extra money in the bank. What these lefty morons don't seem to understand is, that's where investment comes from. If nobody has enough extra money that they can afford to risk investing, then where the hell are investment going to come from? Who the hell is going to put up the money to start new businesses, expand businesses or invest in new developments?

Have you never noticed that nothing is invented in these dumbass socialist countries? The only people who can succeed are giant multinational corporations who are already swimming in money.

The issue is though, that expansion is at the detriment of everyone not rich (aka 90% of the country). Since the 80s, most of the wealth has gone to the very top. That was massive wealth redistribution there that ALREADY took place! In that same time, there was also the massive Reagan tax cuts. Essentially a double whammy but it didn't strike in the 90s. Not until a major crisis with war in Iraq/Afghanistan, Bush raising tax cuts even further. It all went nuclear when the stock market went pop.

We cannot sustain those tax cuts to the very rich. There were still plenty of investments in 80s. America was at the top of its game back then. Government has gotten significantly larger since I admit. Time to reel that in slowly as well. I am hoping Bernie recognizes that you don't want a government too large to handle. Bernie is not a dummy.

[TheMan]

So Bernie wants to take the money away from the rich and shift it towards the middle and lower class...what's not to like? :confusedshrug:

It's mind boggling that more than 80% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their bank account :eek:

That puts me in the top twenty percentile (incredibly) but that's because I sacrifice, I don't spend money on anything, I send it all to my wife. I drive around in a used car to get to work, I don't go out, I don't buy fast food nor buy new clothes, much less spend cash on the latest gadgets and only that way have I been able to save up money.

Fact of the matter is, the economy has been running on a rightwing, corporation friendly, laissez faire neoliberal economic policy (the ones you conservatives push) since Reagan and all that it has left America with is the largest economic disparity between the top and the rest of us since the founding of the republic, and each year it's getting worse. It's time the rich pay their fair share for the good of all of us, not just the rich.

Let's be honest, corporations are greedy, even if they wouldn't pay no taxes (which many of them hardly do), they would still pay low wages instead of raising wages for Americans because they give zero fvcks about their fellow Americans. They want to make as much money as they can, they couldn't care less if their workers need to get welfare to make ends meet (see Walmart). They have zero sense of patriotism towards their fellow Americans...they don't care about us, why should we feel anything about them finally paying their fair share of taxes?

The fact that you conservative dummies defend the rich at your own financial expense gives me cancer :facepalm

Feel the Bern :rockon:

[Nick Young]

Why should rich people be punished for being successful and smart with their money? They already pay more tax than the poor and middle class combined.

[NumberSix]

The issue is though, that expansion is at the detriment of everyone not rich (aka 90% of the country). Since the 80s, most of the wealth has gone to the very top. That was massive wealth redistribution there that ALREADY took place! In that same time, there was also the massive Reagan tax cuts. Essentially a double whammy but it didn't strike in the 90s. Not until a major crisis with war in Iraq/Afghanistan, Bush raising tax cuts even further. It all went nuclear when the stock market went pop.

We cannot sustain those tax cuts to the very rich. There were still plenty of investments in 80s. America was at the top of its game back then. Government has gotten significantly larger since I admit. Time to reel that in slowly as well. I am hoping Bernie recognizes that you don't want a government too large to handle. Bernie is not a dummy.
A tax cut isn't "redistribution" it's letting people keep their own money.

[NumberSix]

So Bernie wants to take the money away from the rich and shift it towards the middle and lower class...what's not to like? :confusedshrug:

Why would you want to take anybody's money away?

[bladefd]

A tax cut isn't "redistribution" it's letting people keep their own money.

You misunderstood. The tax cuts were after most of the wealth redistribution was already done.

Tax cuts under Reagan were going to the rich after the rich wall Street firms were booming at historical levels throughout the 70s and even the 80s. I am guessing the belief was top-down economics with Reagan cabinet and they wanted even bigger economic booms in 80s (their donors were the rich so they probably called for it).

Reagan's 2nd round of the massive tax cuts were completely unnecessary in his 2nd term. In the 2000s, Bush further lowered the taxes. Obama continued those massive tax cuts on the very wealthy. I believe we need to return to what taxes were after Reagan's 1st round of tax cuts in his first term.

[BlakFrankWhite]

Haha, imagine Sanders vs Trump

Democratic socialist vs Democratic fascist

[NumberSix]

You misunderstood. The tax cuts were after most of the wealth redistribution was already done.

Tax cuts under Reagan were going to the rich after the rich wall Street firms were booming at historical levels throughout the 70s and even the 80s. I am guessing the belief was top-down economics with Reagan cabinet and they wanted even bigger economic booms in 80s (their donors were the rich so they probably called for it).

Reagan's 2nd round of the massive tax cuts were completely unnecessary in his 2nd term. In the 2000s, Bush further lowered the taxes. Obama continued those massive tax cuts on the very wealthy. I believe we need to return to what taxes were after Reagan's 1st round of tax cuts in his first term.
Where exactly is the redistribution?

[Take Your Lumps]

Haha, imagine Sanders vs Trump

Democratic socialist vs Nationalist fascist

Would be an epic match-up. Give the people what they want!

[poido123]

There are two types of Republicans--millionaires and suckers. The rise of "Trump the Rebel" proves it.

Trump's anti-establishment cred = a projected $10 trillion in debt + a massive tax cut for the wealthy.

Same old GOP shit.



Trump to make America great again :applause:

[ThePhantomCreep]

Trump to make America great again :applause:

No one ever accused Trumpettes of being big readers.

[UK2K]

Yup, Trump's plan is just trickle down economics/Dubya Bush's economic plan on steroids. Nothing good would ever come from it (Unless you count the Donald and his buddies getting massive tax cuts as good). All the analysis of his proposals lead to the same outcome- another Great Depression.

[QUOTE]If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households

[knickballer]

Tell that to 75 million households.

You realize what your quote is saying that Americans earning below those levels won't pay additional income tax during their tax returns. Meaning during the year they have taxes deducted out of their weekly paycheck and they won't have to pay additional income taxes during their tax return. I'm not sure if you actually think people earning below that level pay zero taxes at all..


I don't care so much about taxing rich individuals. I get it, you earned it and you shouldn't be taxed heavily. What there needs to be major reform is in corporate tax. It's disgusting how some of the biggest corporations like Apple, Microsoft, GE, etc, are paying no taxes. It's reported that Apple actually pays 3% corporate tax, General Electric actually received multi million dollar refund from the government despite being a mega conglomerate. It's BS and it's because they abuse the loopholes in the law.

Then people will argue that it helps them remain competitive and without this they'd be force to cut jobs! Newsflash, many of these corporations are receiving record profits and most of them are outsourcing jobs to India and China to further drive up profits. It's ridiculous.

[TheMan]

Tell that to 75 million households.
So people who make too little income to pay taxes are "winners" now? :oldlol:

You know what, I'd rather lose and pay tens of thousands of dollars in income tax because I'd be squaring away millions being in that Big Loser Club known as the top 1%.

I'd call it winning by subtraction.

These conservatives, only in their book does a wage earner making 30,000 a year is "winning" :yaohappy:

[DukeDelonte13]

Tell that to 75 million households.


what's better, saving 1,000 a year in income taxes or saving 10,000 a year on health insurance costs?

Not realistic either proposal gets through.



Trickle down economics has been unequivocally shown not to work. The idea of voting for a direct benefit for a super small percentage of americans under the hope that they, with zero obligation to do so, use the savings they get to do something that benefits more of the general populace is the biggest farce in all of american society.

[Dave3]

Victory speeches are only deserved in the event of a victory.
And for all intents and purposes, Iowa was a victory for Rubio. He got one less delegate than Trump (the supposed front runner) and 2 less than the winner. He separated himself as the best establishment option, which was followed by 22 endorsements and I presume a bunch of donor money.

If it wasn't for him short circuiting on Saturday, he probably would have come in 2nd or possibly 3rd last night, staying the establishment option, which becomes a much bigger deal as more people drop out and the establishment candidates no longer have to split the votes.

Thanks to Saturday though, the vote is going to stay pretty fragmented for a bit more.

[DeuceWallaces]

And for all intents and purposes, Iowa was a victory for Rubio. He got one less delegate than Trump (the supposed front runner) and 2 less than the winner. He separated himself as the best establishment option, which was followed by 22 endorsements and I presume a bunch of donor money.

If it wasn't for him short circuiting on Saturday, he probably would have come in 2nd or possibly 3rd last night, staying the establishment option, which becomes a much bigger deal as more people drop out and the establishment candidates no longer have to split the votes.

Thanks to Saturday though, the vote is going to stay pretty fragmented for a bit more.

No, he and the RNC wants it to be perceived as a victory, even though a well funded entrenched republican came in 3rd to a bible thumping psycho and a megalomaniac independent.

[UK2K]

So people who make too little income to pay taxes are "winners" now? :oldlol:

You know what, I'd rather lose and pay tens of thousands of dollars in income tax because I'd be squaring away millions being in that Big Loser Club known as the top 1%.

I'd call it winning by subtraction.

These conservatives, only in their book does a wage earner making 30,000 a year is "winning" :yaohappy:

Make that much, and go for it.

Until then, keep bitching about how it isn't fair. I think its very fair, and I am doing just fine. And no, I'm not part of the 1% either.

[UK2K]

what's better, saving 1,000 a year in income taxes or saving 10,000 a year on health insurance costs?

Not realistic either proposal gets through.



Trickle down economics has been unequivocally shown not to work. The idea of voting for a direct benefit for a super small percentage of americans under the hope that they, with zero obligation to do so, use the savings they get to do something that benefits more of the general populace is the biggest farce in all of american society.
How many jobs have you created, out of curiosity?

[TheMan]

what's better, saving 1,000 a year in income taxes or saving 10,000 a year on health insurance costs?

Not realistic either proposal gets through.



Trickle down economics has been unequivocally shown not to work. The idea of voting for a direct benefit for a super small percentage of americans under the hope that they, with zero obligation to do so, use the savings they get to do something that benefits more of the general populace is the biggest farce in all of american society.

Exactly

We've had trickle down economics for more than 30 years now and the only ones who've benefited are the very rich, they've seen their tax rates get lower and lower while the rest of the populace has to pay a bigger percent of their income in taxes than those who could afford more to do so. These are the people who are CEOs, who own big businesses, multi nationals, Wall Street etc.

Why are wages stagnant? Why are businesses going to third world countries? Why isn't part of the wealth trickling down to everyone? I mean, the top are getting richer, but everyone else are worse off than 30-40 years ago. :confusedshrug:

Here's the deal...rich people are greedy. Those millions they are getting in tax breaks aren't being trickled down in the form of higher wages, that money goes to their bank accounts, or invested in the stock market or used to buy up real estate, mansions, yatchs etc.

Even though wages have been stagnant and many Americans need to work two jobs, it's a necessity now for both parents to work just to get by, it wasn't always that way, in the 50s-60s it was normal for a father to work and mom would stay at home with the kids and they could still afford to buy a car, own a home, gone on vacation and put the kids through college...wtf happened???

Even with lower tax rates and lower wages, big business making a killing, THEY STILL WANT TO MAKE MORE MONEY (Ford Motor Co. has been booming now that they've fully recovered from the brink of extinction a few years back, thanks to US tax payers) BUT they are building a huge facility in Mexico and shipping jobs there (dat loyalty) because if they can pay workers 10 dollars a day instead of 15 bucks an hour, then of course these greedy fvcks are going to take advantage of that, right? I mean, profits are in the hundreds of millions but if they can make billions, then fvck the average Joe, let's pay Jose pennies on the dollar, God forbid an American worker should have a liveable wage...

These are the people the average conservative who aren't rich support...the same ones who would take their jobs away to pay someone else in another country a shit wage so they can make even more money than they already do. They have zero sense of loyalty to their workforce...that's a fact.

[TheMan]

Make that much, and go for it.

Until then, keep bitching about how it isn't fair. I think its very fair, and I am doing just fine. And no, I'm not part of the 1% either.
I do ok too...and you'll never be part of the one percent (just in case you're that delusional , but keep shilling for them :applause: )

Look dude, just because I do alright doesn't mean I'm not aware of the huge sector of Americans who work very hard but get paid shitty wages from companies that can afford to pay better wages but, oh no, that would cut into their profits and you know we can't have that :rolleyes:

It's called empathy you callous douchebag

[Micku]

So apparently sanders won easily but Clinton gets more delegates from new Hampshire because politics are very dumb?

It's because of the Super delegates. They are free to support for whoever, despite the ppl voting. They can change before the Dem convention starts. It depends on much momentum that Sanders get. I still think Clinton is still the favorite, but Sanders is surprisingly catching up in the polls. Last time I checked, it was tied nationally.

Clinton was leading by 20+ points in NV and SC. The last polling of NV and SC was like...december? I think? So, maybe things changed over the last couple of months, and it may be closer than what we initially thought. We'll see I guess.

[ThePhantomCreep]

The economic indicators under Obama have been largely positive, forcing Republicans to bitch about wage inequality, which is hilarious considering the wage gap between the average American and the richest among us really began to grow once Reagan and his fellow Republicans forced trickle-down economics upon us.

The wealthiest 10% now own 75% of the nation's wealth. They sure as hell don't pay 75% of all federal taxes.

"They earned it doe" - Non-rich GOP suckers. Good job guys, keep voting for those tax cuts. At this rate, our kids will be lucky to have the socio-economic mobility we do, which is already lower than our counterparts from the 60s and 70s. :facepalm

If tax cuts and deregulation led to strong economic health, GWB's eight years should have been characterized by record growth. Instead, the opposite happened and the economy eventually crashed. Trickle-down economics DOES NOT WORK. Never has.

[UK2K]

I do ok too...and you'll never be part of the one percent (just in case you're that delusional , but keep shilling for them :applause: )

Look dude, just because I do alright doesn't mean I'm not aware of the huge sector of Americans who work very hard but get paid shitty wages from companies that can afford to pay better wages but, oh no, that would cut into their profits and you know we can't have that :rolleyes:

It's called empathy you callous douchebag
I could have if I dedicated my life to it like they do... and you could too. I wont because being a super millionaire isn't all that important to me, but it's not because I couldn't even if I tried.

I, too, am aware lots of people work shitty jobs for shitty wages. You know how you get to that point? By making shitty life choices. You know how you get out of a shitty situation? Start making the right choices. And yeah, its hard, cause life is hard, but for the ones who are willing to do what it takes, life isn't so bad. For the others... well you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

These jobs shitty jobs that pay shitty wages are for pimple faced teenagers. If you are working one of these jobs, then you need to take a good, long, hard, realistic look at what landed you there to begin with, and then start doing the opposite. Because I guarantee you, if you ask anyone working a job for less than $12 an hour, 'what could you have done differently in your life that would have enabled you to work a higher paying job', the vast majority of them could rattle off answers a mile long.

I have empathy for those who are trying, and who are willing to put in the work to change their lives. For the rest who aren't willing, I say oh well.

[knickballer]

I could have if I dedicated my life to it like they do... and you could too. I wont because being a super millionaire isn't all that important to me, but it's not because I couldn't even if I tried.

I, too, am aware lots of people work shitty jobs for shitty wages. You know how you get to that point? By making shitty life choices. You know how you get out of a shitty situation? Start making the right choices. And yeah, its hard, cause life is hard, but for the ones who are willing to do what it takes, life isn't so bad. For the others... well you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

These jobs shitty jobs that pay shitty wages are for pimple faced teenagers. If you are working one of these jobs, then you need to take a good, long, hard, realistic look at what landed you there to begin with, and then start doing the opposite. Because I guarantee you, if you ask anyone working a job for less than $12 an hour, 'what could you have done differently in your life that would have enabled you to work a higher paying job', the vast majority of them could rattle off answers a mile long.

I have empathy for those who are trying, and who are willing to put in the work to change their lives. For the rest who aren't willing, I say oh well.

Okayy, because instead you spend your life arguing with ISHers that Reaganomics work and anyone who doesn't believe in it must be lazy and worthless..


:coleman: :coleman:

[macmac]

Okayy, because instead you spend your life arguing with ISHers that Reaganomics work and anyone who doesn't believe in it must be lazy and worthless..


:coleman: :coleman:

That's what he wants to do bro. He could have been a super millionaire but those things are trivial, unlike message board political debates

[Dresta]

Heh. I read most Americans in general are pretty bad at that anyway.

Let me get it:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-have-less-than-1000-in-savings-2015-10-06

Of course the older generation is a bit better at that, but a lot of Americans like living on the edge or just broke.


Anyway, I don't know what tax plan is the best because I have heard mixed reports. From what little I can remember from my economic class, is that both a high tax or a low tax system could work, but it depends on well our advancement of technology flowing well at the time to create new jobs. So, I don't know if any of this is good because aren't there examples throughout USA history of both working?
You can't expect people to save when you directly incentivise spending and borrowing and the mass accumulation of debt. Keeping your money in a savings account with the interest rates of today is pretty much the same as throwing a sizeable chunk of your money down the toilet each year.

Of course Americans aren't saving: part of the problem is that the accumulation of debt right now is actually the smart thing to do.

[Dresta]

The economic indicators under Obama have been largely positive, forcing Republicans to bitch about wage inequality, which is hilarious considering the wage gap between the average American and the richest among us really began to grow once Reagan and his fellow Republicans forced trickle-down economics upon us.

The wealthiest 10% now own 75% of the nation's wealth. They sure as hell don't pay 75% of all federal taxes.

"They earned it doe" - Non-rich GOP suckers. Good job guys, keep voting for those tax cuts. At this rate, our kids will be lucky to have the social mobility we do, which is already lower than our counterparts from the 60s and 70s. :facepalm

If tax cuts and deregulation led to strong economic health, GWB's eight years should have been characterized by record growth. Instead, the opposite happened and the economy eventually crashed. Trickle-down economics DOES NOT WORK. Never has.
They really haven't. Almost all the economic indicators aside from the unemployment numbers have been dreadful for a year or more now, and the stock market just had its worst start to the year ever.

The jobs numbers will also change very quickly considering how many people are working part-time.

[Dresta]

The top tax rate was at 90% at one point.

.
Why do people always bring this up? Nobody paid that rate; go look at the numbers, or read some history, instead of getting your info from motherjones.com.

[ThePhantomCreep]

They really haven't. Almost all the economic indicators aside from the unemployment numbers have been dreadful for a year or more now, and the stock market just had its worst start to the year ever.

The jobs numbers will also change very quickly considering how many people are working part-time.

Yes, they really have. GDP growth was stable (higher than 2011-2013) and wages are slowly starting to climb. The U3 rate is at 4.9%--2015 created more jobs than the entire Bush presidency!

Everything is stable, if unspectacular.

The stock market was long overdue for a correction, but the Dow Jones is still 100% higher than it was seven years ago.

Why do you think GOP candidates keep exaggerating the threats of terrorism and illegal immigration? Both were bigger issues during the Bush era--hell, even five years ago, but no one dared suggest halting our refugee program (much less a Muslim ban) after 9/11 or Iraq. Now both options are being entertained after Paris and San Bernardino?

Illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle (the population actually declined by one million since 2007), but NOW is the time to build a massive 1,000 mile wall? Now is the time to scapegoat undocumented workers?

They can't really attack the economy, outside of of wage inequality, and that's a problem largely of the GOP's creation. How many policies, aimed at stimulating wages, have they championed over the years? That's right, NONE. So what do they do? They distract by making mountains out of molehills, selling irrational fear to American voters. It's all they have.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Why do people always bring this up? Nobody paid that rate; go look at the numbers, or read some history, instead of getting your info from motherjones.com.

The effective tax rate was much higher during the Eisenhower era regardless. The rich actually paid their fair share in those days, and the country was pretty damn prosperous as a result.

[bladefd]

Where exactly is the redistribution?

The truth is that while the income of middle/lower class has gotten stagnant, new distribution of most NEW wealth was to the very top.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/sites/default/files/Change%20in%20share%20of%20income%20vs.%201979%20a fter%20taxes.gif

Until the 70s, income was following closely with productivity then somewhere down the line, the 2 started to split in the late 1970s.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_ 1947-2009.png/450px-Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_ 1947-2009.png

Bigger gains across the boards that ballooned with Reagan tax cuts, became even bigger under GWB. It has continued under Obama, albeit lower pace..
http://currydemocrats.org/in_perspective/income_distribution_over_time.jpg
http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/10-26-15pov-f2.png

I don't mind the rich getting richer, but I do mind when it is to the detriment of everyone else. Since the 70s, things have been completely lopsided.

What was the point of not 1 but 2 such MASSIVE Reagan tax cuts for the very rich?? Explain that to me. Economy was already booming across the board throughout the 60s and 70s. What came from those massive tax cuts?

I'm sorry, but don't say trickle-down economics. It doesn't work. You know what happens? The rich just stack their wallet further, transfer the wealth to foreign banks, and/or open up a business in foreign country with FOREIGN workers. It already happened. Truth!

[Micku]

Apparently the top 170 economists and professors love Sanders plan?

[quote]
Financial experts, academics, and economists from across the nation are officially endorsing Bernie Sanders

[Dave3]

Apparently the top 170 economists and professors love Sanders plan?



The article list all the 170 economists and professors who gave Sanders high praise.

http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/

This article doesn't go into detail of what they think about it other than it's positive. I don't remember when did Sanders release his tax plan, but the last article that compared the current plan, Trump and Sanders plan was a few days after this article.

Anyway, it's best to check out what do top economists ppl think what should America do going forward. I'll see if I can both positive and negative viewpoints with economists. However, so far what I could find, a lot of economists seem pretty positive about it. If you guys have some articles or essays by other economists, then feel free to share I guess.

Americans don't listen to pediatricians on immunizations and don't listen to climatologists on climate change. I don't foresee them heeding experts on much. People naturally look for things to confirm what they already believe, not to learn more. No one starts research trying to prove themselves wrong.

[Dresta]

Apparently the top 170 economists and professors love Sanders plan?



The article list all the 170 economists and professors who gave Sanders high praise.

http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/

This article doesn't go into detail of what they think about it other than it's positive. I don't remember when did Sanders release his tax plan, but the last article that compared the current plan, Trump and Sanders plan was a few days after this article.

Anyway, it's best to check out what do top economists ppl think what should America do going forward. I'll see if I can both positive and negative viewpoints with economists. However, so far what I could find, a lot of economists seem pretty positive about it. If you guys have some articles or essays by other economists, then feel free to share I guess.If James K. Galbraith and Robert Reich are saying it's a good thing, then all sensible money is on it being disastrous; the latter moron wrote an inane book called "supercapitalism," which actually shows that he knows very little about economics as it pertains to reality, and is obsessed with the vaguest of abstractions ("capitalism" doesn't serve "democracy" any more, apparently - whatever that means, and now we have "supercapitalism" - whatever that means). These people write economics for naive children, they speak in cliches, and they are part of the problem. The problem with most economists is they don't realise how utterly derivative and secondary their subject is, which is why their predictions are almost always off.

America has a gigantic welfare state on the Federal level, and these people actually think it doesn't; they are delusional ideologues whose doctoral degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on.


Yes, they really have. GDP growth was stable (higher than 2011-2013) and wages are slowly starting to climb. The U3 rate is at 4.9%--2015 created more jobs than the entire Bush presidency!

Everything is stable, if unspectacular.

The stock market was long overdue for a correction, but the Dow Jones is still 100% higher than it was seven years ago.

Why do you think GOP candidates keep exaggerating the threats of terrorism and illegal immigration? Both were bigger issues during the Bush era--hell, even five years ago, but no one dared suggest halting our refugee program (much less a Muslim ban) after 9/11 or Iraq. Now both options are being entertained after Paris and San Bernardino?

Illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle (the population actually declined by one million since 2007), but NOW is the time to build a massive 1,000 mile wall? Now is the time to scapegoat undocumented workers?

They can't really attack the economy, outside of of wage inequality, and that's a problem largely of the GOP's creation. How many policies, aimed at stimulating wages, have they championed over the years? That's right, NONE. So what do they do? They distract by making mountains out of molehills, selling irrational fear to American voters. It's all they have.
Probably because Obama has been arming and funding terrorists without scruple, which has resulted in massacres in Europe that people don't want to see in America - not all that complicated is it?

And immigration? Because any intelligent person knows that a most fundamental duty of any government is in maintaining the integrity of its borders. If a government can't do that, then it doesn't have the right to do much else as far as i'm concerned. But yeah, letting masses of people cross into America illegally, pushing down the wages of Americans, so politicians can hark on about "GDP growth" (another vague abstraction that actually means very little) like you are right now, is not a positive as far as i'm concerned. But of course, sheep like you will always be led by the nose, and will think exactly what those holding power want you to think.

*policies of stimulating wages*

:hammerhead:

You're clueless dude. Such a micromanagement of the economy is what plays directly into the hands of corporate oligarchs, and is what's driving the rich/poor divergence. The Federal Government cannot "stimulate wages" - it can only grant favours, and it does that very well. You're like the slave justifying his own servitude; people like you wouldn't know what to do with a hint of freedom, and so you buckle down and try to make sure no-one else can enjoy/suffer from it either.