-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=NumberSix]A tax cut isn't "redistribution" it's letting people keep their own money.[/QUOTE]
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.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
Haha, imagine Sanders vs Trump
Democratic socialist vs Democratic fascist
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=bladefd]You misunderstood. The tax cuts were after most of the [B]wealth redistribution was already done.[/B]
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.[/QUOTE]
Where exactly is the redistribution?
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=BlakFrankWhite]Haha, imagine Sanders vs Trump
Democratic socialist vs [B]Nationalist[/B] fascist[/QUOTE]
Would be an epic match-up. Give the people what they want!
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=ThePhantomCreep]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.[/QUOTE]
Trump to make America great again :applause:
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=poido123]Trump to make America great again :applause:[/QUOTE]
No one ever accused Trumpettes of being big readers.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Yup, Trump's plan is just trickle down economics/Dubya Bush's economic plan on steroids. [B]Nothing good would ever come from it[/B] (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]
[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
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=UK2K]Tell that to 75 million households.[/QUOTE]
You realize what your quote is saying that Americans earning below those levels won't pay [I]additional[/I] 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.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=UK2K]Tell that to 75 million households.[/QUOTE]
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:
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=UK2K]Tell that to 75 million households.[/QUOTE]
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.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=DeuceWallaces]Victory speeches are only deserved in the event of a victory.[/QUOTE]
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.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=Dave3]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=TheMan]So people who make too little income to pay taxes are "winners" now? :oldlol:
You know what,[B] 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%.[/B]
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:[/QUOTE]
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.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=DukeDelonte13]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. [B]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[/B].[/QUOTE]
How many jobs have you created, out of curiosity?
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=DukeDelonte13]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.
[b]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.[/b][/QUOTE]
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.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=UK2K]Make that much, and go for it.
Until then, keep bitching about how it isn't fair. I think its very fair, and [b]I am doing just fine. And no, I'm not part of the 1% either.[/b][/QUOTE]
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
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=The Macho Man]So apparently sanders won easily but Clinton gets more delegates from new Hampshire because politics are very dumb?[/QUOTE]
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.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
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.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=TheMan]I do ok too...and [B]you'll never be part of the one percent[/B] (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[/QUOTE]
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.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=UK2K]I[B] 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. [/B]
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.[/QUOTE]
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:
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=knickballer]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:[/QUOTE]
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
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=Micku]Heh. I read most Americans in general are pretty bad at that anyway.
Let me get it:
[url]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-have-less-than-1000-in-savings-2015-10-06[/url]
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?[/QUOTE]
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.
[I]Of course[/I] Americans aren't saving: part of the problem is that the accumulation of debt right now is actually the smart thing to do.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=ThePhantomCreep][B]The economic indicators under Obama have been largely positive[/B], 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.[/QUOTE]
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 [I]ever[/I].
The jobs numbers will also change very quickly considering how many people are working part-time.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=DonDadda59]The top tax rate was at 90% at one point.
.[/QUOTE]
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.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=Dresta]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 [I]ever[/I].
The jobs numbers will also change very quickly considering how many people are working part-time.[/QUOTE]
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.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=Dresta]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=NumberSix]Where exactly is the redistribution?[/QUOTE]
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.
[IMG]http://www.thomhartmann.com/sites/default/files/Change%20in%20share%20of%20income%20vs.%201979%20after%20taxes.gif[/IMG]
Until the 70s, income was following closely with productivity then somewhere down the line, the 2 started to split in the late 1970s.
[IMG]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[/IMG]
Bigger gains across the boards that ballooned with Reagan tax cuts, became even bigger under GWB. It has continued under Obama, albeit lower pace..
[IMG]http://currydemocrats.org/in_perspective/income_distribution_over_time.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/10-26-15pov-f2.png[/IMG]
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!
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
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
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=Micku]Apparently the top 170 economists and professors love Sanders plan?
The article list all the 170 economists and professors who gave Sanders high praise.
[url]http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/[/url]
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
-
Re: New Hampshire Primary today
[QUOTE=Micku]Apparently the top 170 economists and professors love Sanders plan?
The article list all the 170 economists and professors who gave Sanders high praise.
[url]http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/[/url]
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.[/QUOTE]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.
[QUOTE=ThePhantomCreep]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.
[B]Why do you think GOP candidates keep exaggerating the threats of terrorism and illegal immigration? [/B]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.[/QUOTE]
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 [B]that[/B] 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.