2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: RonCAs are your constant attacks and criticisms of anyone who writes anything that may be of opposition to your writings. If I point out that your written attacks are so broad as to include even people who are on your side, you'll just deflect and say that we don't like each other. You tend to write things that don't stand up to the same scrutiny when someone comes back at you. After all, it was you who first brought not being able to talk to people who support Trump as humans; your writing reflects an inability to avoid talking down to anyone who might not see things exactly the same way you do, even some on the same side politically as you.
I'll take that as a "no," then.
Quote: SOOPOOThe majority of members of this forum selected Trump over Clinton. So your posts by definition must be futile.....
Oh, I agree, as far as those people are concerned. I am under no delusion that any Trumper will suddenly see the light after all this time. But if I help to sway even one "undecided," it's time well spent.
Quote: MathExtremistThat's just a ridiculous thing to say. Someone who's fallen for Trump's bluster and other-bashing pandering is no less a human being than you are. They're misguided, but being misled by a populist demagogue after falling behind financially (and being angry about it) are not reasons for you to denigrate someone as sub-human. People are misled all the time, for many reasons. That doesn't give you an excuse to insult them.
I mean, what's your goal -- to further increase divisiveness? That's entirely antithetical to the goals of a more perfect Union and domestic Tranquility. Donald Trump, by his words, doesn't care about those things. By your words, neither do you.
Any person who supports Trump's racism, bigotry, sexism, etc. etc. etc. has essentially as the core of his existence--his raison d'etre--divisiveness, tribalism, and a sense of self-worth based entirely on hating the "other." Can we get these people to see reason? Can we all join hands with them in a big circle and start singing "We Are the World?" Look at the sheer manic joy on the faces of those people at Trump's hate rallies. This stuff gets them OFF.
Sure, I understand where they're coming from. They made good money down at the steel mill for decades and now, economic change and technology have left them behind. They lacked the knowledge, the sophistication, or the drive to see that coming and compensate for it. Now IT'S GOT TO BE SOMEBODY'S FAULT. Why not Mexicans? Or Muslims? Or stinkin' liberals?
I should have stated things differently, though. WHILE IN THE THRALL OF TRUMP, they are not to be talked to as human beings. I mean, what would have happened to you if you had walked up to a torch-bearer at one of the Nuremberg rallies, tapped him on the shoulder, and said, "Um, you know this guy's just a populist demagogue and isn't actually going to make your lives better, right?" You would have been torn to pieces.
I do hold out some hope that after Trumpism wears off, some of these people will return to their senses. They will be ashamed of that TRUMP Make America Great Again sign now so prominently displayed on the front lawn and quietly take it down and burn it. When somebody at work asks them how they voted, they'll say "Gary Johnson." And they will be eligible to rejoin human society (the post-caveman kind) once more.
Quote:Young Americans are so dissatisfied with their choices in this presidential election that nearly one in four told an opinion poll they would rather have a giant meteor destroy the Earth than see Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in the White House.
There you go, negative campaigning works. It's destroyed the hopes and dreams of 25% of the young people. Now they just want to be smashed by a giant rock.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-clinton-many-young-americans-prefer-giant-meteor-poll-finds/ar-AAj6xY8?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartanntp
Quote: RonCI know it is easy to try and pin all obstructionism on the Republicans; just saying it does not make it true.
No; their ACTIONS (or, strictly speaking, inactions) have made it true. The Democrats have never blocked a Supreme Court nomination made by a Republican President. In fact, Reagan's final appointment, which time-wise (at the end of an eight-year Presidency) sailed right through the Senate, with no Democratic opposition.
In addition, it's unprecedented for one party to block even the CONSIDERATION of a Presidential Supreme Court nominee. Even when partisan shit was flying thick and fast, it was considered to be the duty of the Senate as well as common courtesy to at least hold a hearing. It was, if nothing else, an acknowledgement that the President held certain powers and the Senate had certain duties. The Republicans appear to have chucked honor and decency into the trash can in favor of partisanship.
Ultimately, we'll judge them by their actions. So during Clinton's eight years in office, let's see if they're willing to let the Supreme Court dwindle one by one, stalling until the magical day when we have a Republican President again and we can repeal all those stinkin' liberal laws. (This is, of course, why we need to force them out of control of the Senate, but in a way, I'd like to see them retain control just to see them self-refute that disingenuous "we'll wait until after the election" crap.)
Hillary will be bringing Mark Cuban and Republican Meg Whitman. (Two successful business people - may make Trump jealous).
I'm sorry, are you actually blaming the victims here? That's deplorable. You went to college, I presume, and then probably found a job in part because of that degree (in a related field, using your skills, etc.) If you were fired tomorrow, your entire industry disappeared, and I told you that you would need to reinvent yourself in order to continue living your lifestyle, how long would that take you? If your answer is less than "six months," you're lying. And how many people have six months of cash sitting around as a safety net?Quote: JoeshlabotnikSure, I understand where they're coming from. They made good money down at the steel mill for decades and now, economic change and technology have left them behind. They lacked the knowledge, the sophistication, or the drive to see that coming and compensate for it.
Criticizing the economically-displaced for being "unsophisticated" is just mean-spirited. They may rally behind a bigot like Trump when he peddles false identity-politics and bogus theories of why the economy is so bad, but he wouldn't have any traction if the economy weren't so bad for them in the first place. It's because we -- as a society -- have done a terrible job of taking care of our own and putting in place policies that minimize the effects of economic variance (like industry shifts) on personal financial outcomes. We should aim to do better. Not just to sit back from the comfort of our own homes and rail against the lack of sophistication and knowledge among our underemployed. I mean, you're just kicking them while they're down. That's cruel.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm sorry, are you actually blaming the victims here? That's deplorable. You went to college, I presume, and then probably found a job in part because of that degree (in a related field, using your skills, etc.) If you were fired tomorrow, your entire industry disappeared, and I told you that you would need to reinvent yourself in order to continue living your lifestyle, how long would that take you? If your answer is less than "six months," you're lying. And how many people have six months of cash sitting around as a safety net?
Criticizing the economically-displaced for being "unsophisticated" is just mean-spirited. They may rally behind a bigot like Trump when he peddles false identity-politics and bogus theories of why the economy is so bad, but he wouldn't have any traction if the economy weren't so bad for them in the first place. It's because we -- as a society -- have done a terrible job of taking care of our own and putting in place policies that minimize the effects of economic variance (like industry shifts) on personal financial outcomes. We should aim to do better. Not just to sit back from the comfort of our own homes and rail against the lack of sophistication and knowledge among our underemployed. I mean, you're just kicking them while they're down. That's cruel.
Mostly agree. Ideally, we help those who help themselves. Lead a horse to water, can't make him drink. Etc. Living in denial and blaming others for your problems doesn't get them solved.
Yes, we need to provide transition opportunities. Child care assistance during retraining or job search. Federal infrastructure repair and replacement would provide millions of jobs, mostly not requiring a lot of training, good use of tax moneys for bridges, roads, airports, runways, ports we all use.
But nobody has a right to have a job handed to them. The industry goes dark, that's been happening for hundreds if not thousands of years. What happened to the Lamplighter profession when streetlights went electric? Candlemakers? Icemen (refrigeration)? Small appliance repair (cheap replaceables)? Vacuum tube makers? Hundreds of others.
So sitting around whining about who's to blame when your job leaves is counterproductive, does not get your family fed. Help, yes. Obligation, no.
And
When DT talks about Hillary raising "your" taxes, he's talking to the .1% of you who make 143k +. Boo hoo.
Otoh, look at what he wants to give the people earning that or more, compared to the tax cut he's offering to the 99%. It's all about more for the rich with him, at the expense of the deficit (2nd graph). His increases it by 7.2T over 10 years, hers decreases it
1.6T over the same period.
Vote for that if you want, make the country poorer and the rich richer, but at least know what you're voting for.
Analysis by Tax Policy Center, independent specialists, published in Time Magazine this week. I hope you can read these charts; zoom should help.
If any of y'all wanna toss your hat in, I'd go register and vote for the first time ever.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikSantorum had an agenda, which was probably to show how un-Trump he was. I expect similar sound bites and talk show appearances from other Republicans who are fleeing the sinking ship--they're trying not to let their political careers get sucked to the bottom. So of course he wasn't in bat-poop-crazy mode; that wouldn't have served his purpose. After all, he IS a skilled politician--wait, EWWWWW! That's why we hate Hillary!
That was last year when he was running for the nomination, and he has since endorsed Trump.
That's the historical view, however, and it's based on the Protestant work ethic that equated hard work with success (see the article I posted earlier). That's based on the historical economic truth that even if you worked your ass off, you might still starve to death. The future view is going to be different, at least if technologists have anything to do with it. AI and hyperproductivity are coming whether we like it or not, and unless we stage a Luddite revolt, the best way to move forward is to readjust our societal expectations that "having a job" is equal to "having self-worth." When machines can handle farming, manufacturing, distribution, housing, infrastructure, etc., there won't be much need for people to do those jobs. Still other jobs will disappear as the industries do, just like coal, just like lamplighters. But not just niche industries, entire swaths of the population. Labs are working on synthetic meat. They will ultimately succeed and cattle ranching will go away (or shrink drastically). We can't all be software engineers, but even then, software engineering is likely to go the way of lamplighters at some point too. The question is what kind of economy will support a society where most people don't need to work but still need to eat and live in buildings? It may be a UBI, it may be a non-capitalist society altogether. And the shorter-term question is how to we transition between our current capitalist economy to that one without widespread riots?Quote: beachbumbabsMostly agree. Ideally, we help those who help themselves. Lead a horse to water, can't make him drink. Etc. Living in denial and blaming others for your problems doesn't get them solved.
Yes, we need to provide transition opportunities. Child care assistance during retraining or job search. Federal infrastructure repair and replacement would provide millions of jobs, mostly not requiring a lot of training, good use of tax moneys for bridges, roads, airports, runways, ports we all use.
But nobody has a right to have a job handed to them. The industry goes dark, that's been happening for hundreds if not thousands of years. What happened to the Lamplighter profession when streetlights went electric? Candlemakers? Icemen (refrigeration)? Small appliance repair (cheap replaceables)? Vacuum tube makers? Hundreds of others.
So sitting around whining about who's to blame when your job leaves is counterproductive, does not get your family fed. Help, yes. Obligation, no.
But the worst thing we can do is pretend that the economic shifts I'm talking about aren't going to happen. They're already happening. That's why Trump has so many supporters. The rug of the old economy has been pulled out from under them, and nobody's put a new rug down yet.
Quote: MathExtremistIt may be a UBI, it may be a non-capitalist society altogether. And the shorter-term question is how to we transition between our current capitalist economy to that one without widespread riots?
But the worst thing we can do is pretend that the economic shifts I'm talking about aren't going to happen. They're already happening. That's why Trump has so many supporters. The rug of the old economy has been pulled out from under them, and nobody's put a new rug down yet.
I'm a big fan of a UBI. YC/Sam Altman are running another test project to see how people actually behave when they get one. I think the old canadian experiment showed that suicide rates went down.
I think of myself as a techno-futurist, but I'm not as convinced as others that resource constraints are necessarily a thing of the past, not yet anyway. The (global) population continues to rise and we're still pulling down on reserves of fossil resources. Things should work out, but people have to believe it will work out.
(1) He's a reality TV star and not a politician.
(2) The-establishment movement in Johnson and Stein at 8+% is HUGE due to the fact that the government doesn't get anything done.
(3) Hillary is running and she is (a) a women and (b) a Clinton and represents ultra-establishment, especially when you read Wikileaks, which is really revealing nothing except the detailed level of strategizing and a few disparaging remarks about Catholics, Latinos, Bernie, most republicans and the fact that journalists, to scoop stories, are usually cozy with the reporters. You see it every day plainly on FoxNews, Breitbart, etc.
(4) A large number of people lack analytical skills and believe what they are told. (that is true on both sides).
(5) 45+% (could be 50, I dunno) of the population would vote GOP anyway no matter who the candidate is.
As per Math's points, the United States isn't the most advanced country in the world technologically. It is still quite a bit of time before people will not need to work "but will need to eat and live in buildings". By definition, people will need to work (to provide the food and infrastructure) and to maintain/build/demolish buildings and infrastructure. You make it sound like we are heading to some kind of utopian society where money disappears and we live in a happy (hate to say it) commune.
Capitalism isn't going away any time soon. That will take a full scale revolution where wealth suddenly means nothing. That would take something on the order of nuclear war or the complete collapse of the monetary system for that to occur, and there are too many people (not to mention the 2.5 billion people of China and India) who are relying on capitalism to make their lives better.
Even if the United States goes down the socialist route, a number of things have to happen first. All a revolution would do is replace a capitalist with a dictatorship with the power going to a very few.
Quote: RSI sense quite a bit of hatred coming from joe... They aren't "deplorables" anymore, now they're "sub-human".
More like ACTING sub-human. As I said before, some of them can be redeemed. Trumpism will wear off in many cases.
And it isn't hatred so much as disgust I feel. But you know what? These people DESERVE our hatred. I know several people, including a couple of close relatives, who have been hurt badly by conservatism and would suffer even worse if Trump were elected. That includes a couple of people nearly dying because they couldn't get health care, and a couple more becoming homeless because their disability benefits were cut off (due to Republican-led "budget-adjustments").
So I fiercely oppose these people, what they're saying, and what they intend to do. People are being hurt by this culture of xenophobia and bigotry. I know that a lot of folks want to talk politely and civilly with these people. But where has that gotten us? Have any of them changed their minds in favor of common decency?
So you meant it as a personal attack, but I'm proud of the fact that I oppose and will continue to oppose those subhuman (no hyphen needed!) deplorables.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm sorry, are you actually blaming the victims here?
No, it's the modern economy that's "cruel." Jobs obsolesce. Industries change, and some die out. That's the nature of the beast. And whether or not I'm "blaming the victims" depends on the extent to which they are actually victims. I mean, the coal industry has been slowly dying out for decades. So has the steel industry (due to micro-mills). Heavy manufacturing is in irreversible decline. If you didn't see that coming, you were wearing blinders. So these folks are "victims" in the same sense that people who don't get out of the way of hurricanes become "victims."
Today, there was a segment on NPR about a coal-mining county in West Virginia. There has been a huge job loss as coal mines shut down. Who do they all blame? Them stinkin' Democrats. But look a little under the surface. The average union coal worker earned $41 an hour between 2000-2010. These folks went out and bought $45,000 Ford Mastodons and a lot of guns. Did they save anything? Plan for hard times? Naaah!
I agree that the system, however you define it, can be harsh when industries transition. But that doesn't excuse rallying behind a THING like Trump, or being naive enough to believe his disingenuous promises. What we need are programs to help people transition from obsolescent industries. That could, in fact, be part of Hillary's free college education proposal--it could include vocational training, free of charge, for those in displaced industries. In fact, I'm surprised she hasn't proposed it--it would be a practical means to address the problem, not Trump's promises to kill all Mexicans or blow up China.
Quote: Tanko35% of Americans have debt that is at least 180 days past due.
Zero Edge
I was kind of surprised by this number
but
I was thinking if this number takes into account fraud
Credit is easy in this country
Too easy.
Oldest con , borrowing money never intending to pay back
Credit and lending if rife with fraud in this country
hmm, now 35% makes sense
Quote: FaceI think we owe ol Joeshlabotnik (spell from memory, did I get it right?) a debt of gratitude. I'm sure a few would like to tell me to stuff it and are likely, even understandably, pretty pissed at my lack of action. But in looking at the many responses that he's engendered, I have to thank the stars for his presence. RonC, Rigondeux, ME, MBJ,... y'all are killing it. I'd add boymimbo but I'm currently angry with Canada, so his lauding will have to wait.
If any of y'all wanna toss your hat in, I'd go register and vote for the first time ever.
Let's see if I can parse out the timeline here...I express hatred and disgust for Trump and Republicans...a few insignificant board posters snarl at me (especially if I criticize the things they post)...you applaud...and now you're going to vote for Trump?
You know, the fact that I piss these people off bothers me not at all. Even ME, who I agree with more often than not, preaches to me from a high horse. It's both sad and amusing. I eat breakfast in a local cafe a couple of times a week, and there is invariably some old guy talking way too loudly over his pancakes to a friend listening resignedly, about how them liburruls are destroyin' the country and how Trump will fix everything because he tells it like it is. Because I want to enjoy my breakfast, I try to tune it out. But maybe Ron and Rig and MBJ and PB&J and whoever else are suffering the effects of my anger at the Breakfast Bloviator.
Quote: beachbumbabsMostly agree. Ideally, we help those who help themselves. Lead a horse to water, can't make him drink. Etc. Living in denial and blaming others for your problems doesn't get them solved.
Yes, we need to provide transition opportunities. Child care assistance during retraining or job search. Federal infrastructure repair and replacement would provide millions of jobs, mostly not requiring a lot of training, good use of tax moneys for bridges, roads, airports, runways, ports we all use.
But nobody has a right to have a job handed to them. The industry goes dark, that's been happening for hundreds if not thousands of years. What happened to the Lamplighter profession when streetlights went electric? Candlemakers? Icemen (refrigeration)? Small appliance repair (cheap replaceables)? Vacuum tube makers? Hundreds of others.
So sitting around whining about who's to blame when your job leaves is counterproductive, does not get your family fed. Help, yes. Obligation, no.
The trouble with ME's arguments, which were distorted because he was in sanctimonious scolding mode (with me as the target), is that these transitions happen gradually. Nobody suddenly wakes up one morning and finds that the industry they work in has disappeared. There is always ample warning. What makes things worse is when a demagogue tells people that denying reality is the solution to their problems. Or when someone just sits and whines about how them socialist liburruls are destroying the country and doesn't do anything to plan for the future--one that may not be as rosy as when you had that juicy union job that paid $40 an hour with triple time for overtime.
So I don't have a lot of sympathy. Times are a'changing. Suck it up. Acknowledge that you should have saved up during those fat times and now, you're going to have to scramble. As Obama said to Trump today, stop whining.
I know that saying that, ME, makes me a cruel meanie-headed meanie head.
Yesterday, President Obama tells Trump to "stop whining" about a rigged election and try to win some votes instead.
Then, the Trump campaign announces they've invited Obama's Kenyan half brother to attend the debate.
Hillary is running for President, not Obama. Bringing his half-brother to the debate will have no impact on Hillary. It's just stupid. Makes Trump look weak and petty.
Quote: ams288Another bright and shiny example of how easy it is to bait Trump into lashing out:
Yesterday, President Obama tells Trump to "stop whining" about a rigged election and try to win some votes instead.
The President is right about that--I am tired of hearing it.
The President also showed his lack of class by doing it at a news conference with a foreign leader. The political stuff should be done in another forum.
At least one of them will be gone come January!!
Quote: RonCThe President also showed his lack of class by doing it at a news conference with a foreign leader. The political stuff should be done in another forum.
I always laugh when Republicans - who criticize Obama for literally everything - try to feign outrage when Obama mentions Trump overseas or when he's in the U.S. but in the presence of a "foreign leader." Who cares?!
"It's not Presidential!" they say, as they ready themselves to vote for the Orange Orangutan...
I like it when Mr. #MAGA claims that he's winning in the polls ("all of them") when in fact he is losing "all of them" even though completed by his partners at FoxNews.
I like it when Mr. Law and Order encourages people to go out and intimidate voters at the polling booths when there are laws in place to protect voters from such intimidation.
I like it when Mr. #MAGA states that the democracy is rigged when there is absolutely no proof in any polling irregularities that would sway any result.
I'll love it when the Trump brand goes down the toilet and Mr. Trump is a footnote in history.
Quote: RonC
The President also showed his lack of class by doing it at a news conference with a foreign leader. The political stuff should be done in another forum.
That's a really dumb thing to say. Obviously, you don't like Obama, but that doesn't mean that he has to follow your rules about what a President can or can't say at a press conference.
For that matter, Obama has shown more class than just about anyone in politics, and consistently so over the last eight years. I know you won't acknowledge that, because you don't like him (he's a Democrat? member of a lesser race? born in Kenya?), but it's true.
Quote: boymimbo
I'll love it when the Trump brand goes down the toilet and Mr. Trump is a footnote in history.
Trumpism will never die--it's like a mutant virus. If Trump disappears--as he almost certainly will--then Joe Sixpack will need someone else to worship. Maybe Hulk Hogan or Miss Piggy this time around.
There are enough people who are nasty and stupid out there that they can always clot to form a political movement. The deplorables aren't as large a segment of American society as they used to be, but they're still significant. We're well behind other societies in that regard. Trumpers would be regarded as a curiosity, an aberration elsewhere--here, they get segments on Fox News.
I'm sorry, I don't think the election should be a subject of discussion by our President at at a joint appearance with a foreign leader.
I am not the same as the folks who do this--I will call out people on both sides of the aisle. Of course, I get criticized for that, too!
Quote: RonCThe faux outrage you get around here when you say the President said the right thing (stop whining) but in the wrong place is hilarious. All of the sudden I am a Trumpist Racist Birther!!!
I'm sorry, I don't think the election should be a subject of discussion by our President at at a joint appearance with a foreign leader.
I am not the same as the folks who do this--I will call out people on both sides of the aisle. Of course, I get criticized for that, too!
No, when YOU feign outrage at the President having violated one of your rules--gosh almighty, what was he thinking, he should have checked with you first!--it makes one wonder why you would do so (since that outrage is so silly). You've made your dislike for Obama clear. It makes you a wee bit less than objective (though I'm sure you view yourself as objective perfection).
News flash: all sorts of stuff gets mentioned in the course of news conferences, during speeches and public appearances, etc. and has been ever since the days of radio. No one calls out the Relevance Police to tell a President what he should or shouldn't be saying. The fact that you (supposedly) don't think Obama should have mentioned the election means absolutely nothing. He'll say what he wants to--that's his right.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikThat's a really dumb thing to say. Obviously, you don't like Obama, but that doesn't mean that he has to follow your rules about what a President can or can't say at a press conference.
For that matter, Obama has shown more class than just about anyone in politics, and consistently so over the last eight years. I know you won't acknowledge that, because you don't like him (he's a Democrat? member of a lesser race? born in Kenya?), but it's true.
What I don't like is writing that tries to imply racism as yours does. It is a thinly veiled personal attack but it reveals much more about you than it does about me.
It actually is possible to dislike a President simply because of his actions and positions, and not the color of his skin or anything of that sort.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikNo, when YOU feign outrage at the President having violated one of your rules--gosh almighty, what was he thinking, he should have checked with you first!--it makes one wonder why you would do so (since that outrage is so silly). You've made your dislike for Obama clear. It makes you a wee bit less than objective (though I'm sure you view yourself as objective perfection).
News flash: all sorts of stuff gets mentioned in the course of news conferences, during speeches and public appearances, etc. and has been ever since the days of radio. No one calls out the Relevance Police to tell a President what he should or shouldn't be saying. The fact that you (supposedly) don't think Obama should have mentioned the election means absolutely nothing. He'll say what he wants to--that's his right.
Yeah, I am wrong for believing a President (any President) should act Presidential when appearing on foreign soil or with a foreign leader. There is a time and place for everything; the President has every right to express his views on Trump's behavior and I have every right to expect more out of our President regarding his actions as President. There are ways to deflect questions ("I do have something to say about that; I will issue a statement on that shortly") if someone else brings it up.
The fact that you think I am wrong means absolutely nothing.
Quote: RonCWhat I don't like is writing that tries to imply racism as yours does. It is a thinly veiled personal attack but it reveals much more about you than it does about me.
It actually is possible to dislike a President simply because of his actions and positions, and not the color of his skin or anything of that sort.
OK, you don't like his policies and positions, so he's not entitled to discuss issues unless you approve of the time and place.
I did speculate that why you don't like him could be that he's a Democrat. I don't know what your racial views are--I only have some Islamophobe positions that you've articulated to go on, which are not the same thing as racism. Yes, it's certainly possible that you don't like Obama simply because he's a stinkin' liberal or something like that, not because he's black.
Regardless, he doesn't need your approval to discuss the election, at any place or time he chooses to. Your snipe about "lack of class" (why? because he doesn't follow your rules?) certainly shows lack of objectivity on your part.
The Trump campaign is so trashy. Only 20 days till he loses and he will spend the rest of his life being known as a loser. That's gonna be rough for him.
Quote: beachbumbabsSpeaking of infrastructure and taxes
And
When DT talks about Hillary raising "your" taxes, he's talking to the .1% of you who make 143k +. Boo hoo.
Otoh, look at what he wants to give the people earning that or more, compared to the tax cut he's offering to the 99%. It's all about more for the rich with him, at the expense of the deficit (2nd graph). His increases it by 7.2T over 10 years, hers decreases it
1.6T over the same period.
Vote for that if you want, make the country poorer and the rich richer, but at least know what you're voting for.
Analysis by Tax Policy Center, independent specialists, published in Time Magazine this week. I hope you can read these charts; zoom should help.
Posted this yesterday, wanting to discuss an actual campaign issue that a large number of people say they care about. Best simple graphing yet of both candidates' tax plans and their effect by earning stratum.
Crickets.
30 or so posts later, maybe 2 have something to do with election issues, though not this one. The rest is posturing and assumptions among members, gossip about nonsense matters in the campaigns. Bleah. Can't we all just get along? Truly interested in why Trump supporters would vote for his plan; maybe I'm missing something.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: beachbumbabsSpeaking of infrastructure and taxes
And
When DT talks about Hillary raising "your" taxes, he's talking to the .1% of you who make 143k +. Boo hoo.
Otoh, look at what he wants to give the people earning that or more, compared to the tax cut he's offering to the 99%. It's all about more for the rich with him, at the expense of the deficit (2nd graph). His increases it by 7.2T over 10 years, hers decreases it
1.6T over the same period.
Vote for that if you want, make the country poorer and the rich richer, but at least know what you're voting for.
Analysis by Tax Policy Center, independent specialists, published in Time Magazine this week. I hope you can read these charts; zoom should help.
Posted this yesterday, wanting to discuss an actual campaign issue that a large number of people say they care about. Best simple graphing yet of both candidates' tax plans and their effect by earning stratum.
Crickets.
30 or so posts later, maybe 2 have something to do with election issues, though not this one. The rest is posturing and assumptions among members, gossip about nonsense matters in the campaigns. Bleah. Can't we all just get along? Truly interested in why Trump supporters would vote for his plan; maybe I'm missing something.
I just can't figure it out either. Why would people NOT want to give their money away? This isn't even America anymore.
There has been a cognitive disconnect in lower-middle-class voters going for GOP policies for a while now. Nothing in Trump's proposals moves the needle there at all. For some reason, left-behind voters still think trickle-down economics works, that rich people "create jobs" and that those jobs will both be domestic and provide middle-class incomes. Neither has been true recently. I honestly don't understand it. Taxation is inherently redistributive, and the states that receive the most federal dollars relative to state budgets also tend to be the ones voting *against* federal taxation. Here's 2013 data from the Tax Foundation:Quote: beachbumbabs30 or so posts later, maybe 2 have something to do with election issues, though not this one. The rest is posturing and assumptions among members, gossip about nonsense matters in the campaigns. Bleah. Can't we all just get along? Truly interested in why Trump supporters would vote for his plan; maybe I'm missing something.
and here's the current red/blue map from FiveThirtyEight:
It's not a perfect correlation but it's a decidedly positive one (between red states in the tax map and red states in the polling map). I'm not sure what convinced the rank-and-file GOP voters to believe the idea that cutting taxes on rich people would make their lives better, but it's been dogmatic for several decades now despite the failure of Reaganomics (e.g., middle class stagnation after cutting rich people's taxes). So when Trump -- the ultimate rich guy's rich guy -- comes along and says he's going to cut taxes on rich people, the groundwork has already been laid to support that policy despite the fact that we *know* it won't help middle class wage stagnation.
Let me just put my hand on this red hot burner again, I'm sure it won't hurt this time...
Quote: RonCThe faux outrage you get around here when you say the President said the right thing (stop whining) but in the wrong place is hilarious. All of the sudden I am a Trumpist Racist Birther!!!
I'm sorry, I don't think the election should be a subject of discussion by our President at at a joint appearance with a foreign leader.
I am not the same as the folks who do this--I will call out people on both sides of the aisle. Of course, I get criticized for that, too!
I was particularly impressed by you calling out Trump for saying he planned to meet with Putin before he was sworn in, undermining the sitting President.
Understood, and I don't think this is going to happen in my lifetime (at least probably not). But I don't think a full scale revolution is how it happens. I think it's a shift in production and service delivery capabilities that heralds in the era of depressed pricing. I've already mentioned two major industries that will fail in the future to provide huge numbers of jobs -- farming and trucking -- and many others will follow. The question is what will people do with their time, and how will they be compensated for it? The current economy has no answers for a population that is 50% unemployed, not because they're lazy, but because robots are doing all the dirty work. If we think that transition will happen in a clean, orderly fashion all by itself, without policy intervention, we're deluding ourselves. I think it's best to lay the groundwork for that shift now so it's not a full-scale riot when it happens. Like I said, whether it's a UBI or some other approach, anything is better than just sticking our collective heads in the sand and hoping for the best.Quote: boymimboAs per Math's points, the United States isn't the most advanced country in the world technologically. It is still quite a bit of time before people will not need to work "but will need to eat and live in buildings". By definition, people will need to work (to provide the food and infrastructure) and to maintain/build/demolish buildings and infrastructure. You make it sound like we are heading to some kind of utopian society where money disappears and we live in a happy (hate to say it) commune.
Capitalism isn't going away any time soon. That will take a full scale revolution where wealth suddenly means nothing. That would take something on the order of nuclear war or the complete collapse of the monetary system for that to occur, and there are too many people (not to mention the 2.5 billion people of China and India) who are relying on capitalism to make their lives better.
And I don't necessarily think a post-capitalism society is a utopia. But it has the possibility of being exactly the opposite if we're all still expecting that capital will always buy labor but that's no longer true.
Quote: beachbumbabsPosted this yesterday, wanting to discuss an actual campaign issue that a large number of people say they care about. Best simple graphing yet of both candidates' tax plans and their effect by earning stratum.
Crickets.
30 or so posts later, maybe 2 have something to do with election issues, though not this one. The rest is posturing and assumptions among members, gossip about nonsense matters in the campaigns. Bleah. Can't we all just get along? Truly interested in why Trump supporters would vote for his plan; maybe I'm missing something.
"Yet the tax-policy analyses that receive the most media attention in the electoral cycle—those of the Tax Policy Center (TPC), a joint effort of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution—don’t take into account the interplay between policy and the macro economy. These two Democratic-aligned think tanks disapprove of tax cuts, and their recent evaluations of some Republican plans inflate the static costs of tax reform while ignoring the dynamic impact of tax reform on growth, and thus ultimately on government revenues as well. "
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-partisan-tax-policy-center-1457132750
Not a shocker,of course, Time leans left. I read it cover to cover every week; this week's cover featured Trump melting down--that is a pretty accurate depiction of the week. I do put stock in a lot of what they say; it isn't like I just discount everything because they lean one way or the other. I'd like to see a true independent evaluation of both plans.
The plan that actually will work is "neither of the above" because anything that happens will require a President who gains some cooperation of the Congress. The Clinton folks did a decent job of this (triangulation) while Bill was in office; will Hillary be like that or will she be different?
Quote: billryanI was particularly impressed by you calling out Trump for saying he planned to meet with Putin before he was sworn in, undermining the sitting President.
If Trump is elected, which is a long shot at this point from what I see, he needs to concentrate on his transition to the Presidency and the issues he wants to address immediately rather than meeting with any foreign leader during that time.
For someone who has been listening to Trump's supporters speak in exactly the same tones for over a year -- and decrying their positions -- it's highly ironic that you're parroting their attitudes. You don't have any compassion for someone who's gotten screwed over by events outside their control? You don't want our larger society to take any steps to mitigate their problems, or enact policy to help get them back on their feet again?Quote: JoeshlabotnikSo I don't have a lot of sympathy. Times are a'changing. Suck it up. Acknowledge that you should have saved up during those fat times and now, you're going to have to scramble. As Obama said to Trump today, stop whining.
Welcome to the conservative movement, friend. Your GOP voter card is in the mail.
Edit: that was unfair. I know many conservatives that have more compassion for their fellow man than was displayed in the above quote.
Quote: RonCWhat I don't like is writing that tries to imply racism as yours does. It is a thinly veiled personal attack but it reveals much more about you than it does about me. It actually is possible to dislike a President simply because of his actions and positions, and not the color of his skin or anything of that sort.
I said a very similar thing a long time ago, ME, that if JLB's going to be so consistently wrong about everything that he might as well switch sides. In any event, isn't it clear by now that he's simply not worth engaging? I'll understand if you guys don't want to block him as I did, but there's clearly no value in discussing anything with him. He frequently misunderstands what you say anyway and then invents a fake position for you and argues against that instead of what you actually said.Quote: MathExtremistFor someone who has been listening to Trump's supporters speak in exactly the same tones for over a year -- and decrying their positions -- it's highly ironic that you're parroting their attitudes.....Welcome to the conservative movement, friend. Your GOP voter card is in the mail.
I think that will likely be more up to Congress than Hillary. If the sentiment expressed by John McCain the other day -- blocking Hillary's proposals as a matter of general principle -- is broadly acted upon by Congress, then cooperation goes out the window. I hope it doesn't happen, and it's shameful to have even suggested it.Quote: RonCThe plan that actually will work is "neither of the above" because anything that happens will require a President who gains some cooperation of the Congress. The Clinton folks did a decent job of this (triangulation) while Bill was in office; will Hillary be like that or will she be different?
Quote: MichaelBluejayQuote: RonCWhat I don't like is writing that tries to imply racism as yours does. It is a thinly veiled personal attack but it reveals much more about you than it does about me. It actually is possible to dislike a President simply because of his actions and positions, and not the color of his skin or anything of that sort.
I said a very similar thing a long time ago, ME, that if JLB's going to be so consistently wrong about everything that he might as well switch sides. In any event, isn't it clear by now that he's simply not worth engaging? I'll understand if you guys don't want to block him as I did, but there's clearly no value in discussing anything with him. He frequently misunderstands what you say anyway and then invents a fake position for you and argues against that instead of what you actually said.Quote: MathExtremistFor someone who has been listening to Trump's supporters speak in exactly the same tones for over a year -- and decrying their positions -- it's highly ironic that you're parroting their attitudes.....Welcome to the conservative movement, friend. Your GOP voter card is in the mail.
If you truly have Joeshlabotnik blocked, you should not have been able to see the post by MathExtremist that you quoted in this post.
When you block someone, any posts that quote the blocked member should not appear. So you must be a masochist and clicked on "Show it to me anyway."
There is a wall of taco trucks surrounding the Trump property in Vagas
Its a protest :-)
Taco Trucks Protest Donald Trump By Creating Wall Outside His Las Vegas Hotel
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/taco-trucks-trump-las-vegas_us_5806e250e4b0180a36e760e3?section=&
Quote: terapinedAnybody in Vegas see this
There is a wall of taco trucks surrounding the Trump property in Vagas
Its a protest :-)
Taco Trucks Protest Donald Trump By Creating Wall Outside His Las Vegas Hotel
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/taco-trucks-trump-las-vegas_us_5806e250e4b0180a36e760e3?section=&
If I were in Vegas today I would definitely be having lunch there. This thread needs to turn into pictures of the tacos people ate for lunch today:
(insert street taco pictures here)
Mine were bacon egg and cheese with whole wheat tortillas. Sorry, too late for pics.Quote: MathExtremistIf I were in Vegas today I would definitely be having lunch there. This thread needs to turn into pictures of the tacos people ate for lunch today:
(insert street taco pictures here)
It is more informative to look at the whole of their economic plans rather than their tax plans alone. Independent analysis has concluded that Clinton's plan would increase dept although not as much as Trump's plan, but I believe that's purely accidental. Clinton would raise revenue by sticking to the rich because it's politic to do so. It's a democrat brand of populism but it doesn't generate enough revenue to make much of a difference. Do either of them have any intention of cutting overall spending? Just like Donald's hair that "waste, fraud and abuse" line is leftover from the 80s. He has yuge spending plans on military, infrastructure and I understand a very attractive wall.Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: beachbumbabsSpeaking of infrastructure and taxes
And
When DT talks about Hillary raising "your" taxes, he's talking to the .1% of you who make 143k +. Boo hoo.
Otoh, look at what he wants to give the people earning that or more, compared to the tax cut he's offering to the 99%. It's all about more for the rich with him, at the expense of the deficit (2nd graph). His increases it by 7.2T over 10 years, hers decreases it
1.6T over the same period.
Vote for that if you want, make the country poorer and the rich richer, but at least know what you're voting for.
Analysis by Tax Policy Center, independent specialists, published in Time Magazine this week. I hope you can read these charts; zoom should help.
Posted this yesterday, wanting to discuss an actual campaign issue that a large number of people say they care about. Best simple graphing yet of both candidates' tax plans and their effect by earning stratum.
Crickets.
30 or so posts later, maybe 2 have something to do with election issues, though not this one. The rest is posturing and assumptions among members, gossip about nonsense matters in the campaigns. Bleah. Can't we all just get along? Truly interested in why Trump supporters would vote for his plan; maybe I'm missing something.
The reported national dept of 18 trillion underestimates the situation ten fold. It doesn't include the shortfall in Social Security and Medicare. Economist Laurance Kotlicoff calculated the difference between the present value of government future obligations and projected revenue. He called it the fiscal gap. He puts it at 199 trillion. What is either candidate proposing to do about it? Nothing. Clinton wants to expand SS benifits. She wants to partially close the gap by applying SS tax to some income not currently taxed. What a wonderful way of showing our children how much we hate them.
Is there a credible proposal from anyone on that topic? Even Kotlikoff seems to be starting with the baby step of "let's just account for it officially, then figure out to do with it later." His proposed INFORM act was presented (by, among others, Tim Kaine) but died in Congress about 3 years ago.Quote: JimRockfordThe reported national dept of 18 trillion underestimates the situation ten fold. It doesn't include the shortfall in Social Security and Medicare. Economist Laurance Kotlicoff calculated the difference between the present value of government future obligations and projected revenue. He called it the fiscal gap. He puts it at 199 trillion. What is either candidate proposing to do about it? Nothing.
http://www.theinformact.org/
Quote: beachbumbabs30 or so posts later, maybe 2 have something to do with election issues, though not this one. The rest is posturing and assumptions among members, gossip about nonsense matters in the campaigns. Bleah. Can't we all just get along? Truly interested in why Trump supporters would vote for his plan; maybe I'm missing something.
Well, you're citing facts. But when has this election had anything to do with facts? Can you imagine a Trumper looking at these figures and saying, "Well, wow, my hero's tax plan is a giant pile of pig doots! I'm not going to vote for him after all!"? For that matter, I don't think any undecided voter would be swayed, either. Numbers are BORING. And they're HARD.
Why would Trumpers support his tax plan? Because they want to BELIEVE. The details don't matter--in fact, someone like you, pointing out the flaws in the plan, would just be regarded as a liberal biased blasphemer.
I don't think that the Republican mantra of tax breaks for the rich and screw the poor is new news. Trump just has a new (and more wildly impractical) riff on it. Of course, it would slaughter the economy if actually implemented, so it's a spectacularly dumb idea. But why would this spectacularly dumb idea have any effect on how people view Trump when several dozen equally spectacularly dumb ideas articulated by him have had no such effect, except for possibly causing the deplorables to flock to him?
I have no faith whatsoever that the American public, as a whole, has anything but the most tenuous grasp of the issues that affect their lives.
