• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NOV 7 - What if Dems fall short?

Helix said:
yes, there have actually been plenty of attempts at trickle down regardless of whether you acknowledge it or not. here's another one that has been proposed.

Trump Wants to Unilaterally Give the Rich (Another) Tax Cut

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/us/politics/trump-tax-cuts-rich.html
Click to expand...
"Trickle down" is a ridiculous LW mantra that means little in the real world. And the NYT "fake news" headline is about a proposal to index capital gains to inflation. Yet another attempt to fool low info LW drones into mindless complaining. While it is true wealthier people tend to claim cap gains, so do your mutual funds, retirement accounts and pension plans. Not to mention the cap gain when you sell a house and don't purchase another. Are you glad I saved you from dronedom? NYT's motto USED to be "All the news that's fit to print", now it's "All the news that fits our agenda".
 
Helix said:
no. progressive income tax brackets.
Click to expand...

The US already has progressive tax brackets.

I guess what you are saying is that these tax brackets are not punitive enough for those that earn more than you, for your liking.
Seems that you'd much rather more harshly punish success, in order to what? Encourage success?

sorry, Lucy. i'm not kicking that football this time.



again, that's not what i argued.
Click to expand...
 
eohrnberger said:
The US already has progressive tax brackets.

I guess what you are saying is that these tax brackets are not punitive enough for those that earn more than you, for your liking.
Seems that you'd much rather more harshly punish success, in order to what? Encourage success?
Click to expand...

i support taxing all income as income above a cap, but that might be its own thread. as for the payroll tax, raise it if necessary. if that isn't enough, divert funds. if that isn't enough, raise other taxes. i'm for prioritizing so that we can honor our promises to workers.
 
Helix said:
i support taxing all income as income above a cap, but that might be its own thread. as for the payroll tax, raise it if necessary. if that isn't enough, divert funds. if that isn't enough, raise other taxes. i'm for prioritizing so that we can honor our promises to workers.
Click to expand...

workers_unite_by_party9999999-d351xmk.png


Never mind about free markets, or freedom of choice, or liberty, or self determination, or anything else. :roll:

Yeah, that's an economic system that works (as anyone familiar with history would know). :roll:
 
eohrnberger said:
workers_unite_by_party9999999-d351xmk.png


Never mind about free markets, or freedom of choice, or liberty, or self determination, or anything else. :roll:

Yeah, that's an economic system that works (as anyone familiar with history would know). :roll:
Click to expand...

i don't support communism at a state or national level. however, i do support labor organization. i also support voting out everyone who tries to subvert unions and labor rights.
 
Helix said:
i don't support communism at a state or national level. however, i do support labor organization. i also support voting out everyone who tries to subvert unions and labor rights.
Click to expand...

Raising the unions to dictate labor costs, one of the means of production. Ahh. Hmm.

I have no problem with labor unions for large company employers, as there's an appropriate counter balance.

I do not believe that public sector unions have any right to exist, much like FDR stated back in the day.
 
eohrnberger said:
Raising the unions to dictate labor costs, one of the means of production. Ahh. Hmm.

I have no problem with labor unions for large company employers, as there's an appropriate counter balance.

I do not believe that public sector unions have any right to exist, much like FDR stated back in the day.
Click to expand...

i don't agree. my parents, as teachers, had the same right to sell their labor at a fair price as anyone else does. they earned every damned cent that they made and then some.
 
Helix said:
i don't agree. my parents, as teachers, had the same right to sell their labor at a fair price as anyone else does. they earned every damned cent that they made and then some.
Click to expand...

Fair.

Public sector unions have long had the practice of supporting, and getting elected, local and state legislator candidates who promise to spend the taxpayer's money for cushy and excessively costly union contracts with ridiculous work rules, lifetime benefits packages and collecting multiple retirement packages - one for each position held, all unheard of in the private sector, which has switched over to defined contribution retirement packages, rather than defined benefits retirement packages.

The elected legislator in question doesn't care what sort of deal is struck, as it's the taxpayer's money not his, nor is the legislator held accountable in the end. The taxpayer's end up being stuck with the bill, and come to realize this, usually, after the legislator has moved on to higher office, such as the federal government. Generally speaking, all other local services are cut to the bone to be able to pay the public sector union and their benefits, while the taxpayer's end up suffering, usually resulting in a down turn in the local economy as those that can move out, and the increased risk of bankruptcy of the local government, at which time, the excessive union contract is open again to re-negotiation. It's all a rather destructive cycle of forced wealth redistribution from middle class taxpayers to public sector union members.
 
eohrnberger said:
workers_unite_by_party9999999-d351xmk.png


Never mind about free markets, or freedom of choice, or liberty, or self determination, or anything else. :roll:

Yeah, that's an economic system that works (as anyone familiar with history would know). :roll:
Click to expand...

Oh so you are familiar with history, are you? All developed economies of the world today are MIXED economies. None have a pure capitalist system. It's not because they are stupid and ignorant of history.

This is what it looked like in this country the last time we had a pure, unregulated free market system- no child labor laws, no antitrust laws, no workplace safety laws:

capitalism1.jpgcapitalism2.jpgcapitalism3.jpg
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
A little WHAT IF here.

Let us say it is November 7 and the Democrats have picked up some seats in the mid term elections. While they only keep their 49 in the Senate - they have picked up an amazing 22 seats in the House. Added to the 194 they hold, it gives them 216. Sadly, they needed to pick up 24 and now the GOP holds control of the House with 219.

So the Democrats are in the same position they are today with the Republicans controlling both parts of Congress.

A simple - or perhaps not so simple question: what happens now in politics regarding Trump and Congress and what does it spell for 2019 and 2020?

Speculate away.
Click to expand...

Trump solidifies his grip on the country. And, the Republicans rubber stamp whatever he wants because they fear being primaried and now no longer care about losing in the general.

Likely outcomes:

Senate-- ND and WV flip Red. AZ goes Blue. TX toss up. So, net loss of one seat to the D, as of today.

House--25 to 35 seats flip Blue
 
ataraxia said:
Oh so you are familiar with history, are you? All developed economies of the world today are MIXED economies. None have a pure capitalist system. It's not because they are stupid and ignorant of history.

This is what it looked like in this country the last time we had a pure, unregulated free market system- no child labor laws, no antitrust laws, no workplace safety laws:

View attachment 67238895View attachment 67238896View attachment 67238897
Click to expand...

Oh, so where was there any claim or support for a "pure capitalist system" ?

Even previously communistic systems have recognized capitalism as the engine for economic growth and have adopted it (Russia, China). And then you have those that don't, and have killed off capitalism in their economies, such as Venezuela, with the predictable results.

Read what is posted, and not what you'd like to have read.
 
eohrnberger said:
The US already has progressive tax brackets.

I guess what you are saying is that these tax brackets are not punitive enough for those that earn more than you, for your liking.
Seems that you'd much rather more harshly punish success, in order to what? Encourage success?
Click to expand...

Study after study clearly show that because of the ENTIRE TAX PICTURE that impacts the average persons income - and that includes FICA taxes, state income taxes, use taxes, excise taxes, city income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes and all other forms of taxation, when you consider the total picture of all that, there is precious little difference between the percentage of tax paid by a rich person in a high federal income tax bracket and that of an average worker.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-much-poor-actually-pay-taxes-probably-think

https://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf

and since this study taxes on the rich have only gone even lower making the situation even worse.
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
Oh, so where was there any claim or support for a "pure capitalist system" ?

Even previously communistic systems have recognized capitalism as the engine for economic growth and have adopted it (Russia, China). And then you have those that don't, and have killed off capitalism in their economies, such as Venezuela, with the predictable results.

Read what is posted, and not what you'd like to have read.
Click to expand...

No one is out to kill capitalism. Not even Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. So you can relax.
 
ataraxia said:
No one is out to kill capitalism. Not even Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. So you can relax.
Click to expand...

Overly burden the productive parts of the economy again, you'll have your 1% - 2% GDP 'new normal' growth rate and higher unemployment rate back.
 
haymarket said:
Study after study clearly show that because of the ENTIRE TAX PICTURE that impacts the average persons income - and that includes FICA taxes, state income taxes, use taxes, excise taxes, city income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes and all other forms of taxation, when you consider the total picture of all that, there is precious little difference between the percentage of tax paid by a rich person in a high federal income tax bracket and that of an average worker.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-much-poor-actually-pay-taxes-probably-think

https://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf

and since this study taxes on the rich have only gone even lower making the situation even worse.
Click to expand...

Since when do you go to someone without capital or a poor person to get hired? Or doesn't that figure into your preferred narrative?
 
eohrnberger said:
Since when do you go to someone without capital or a poor person to get hired? Or doesn't that figure into your preferred narrative?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that has to do with tax impact and rates.
 
eohrnberger said:
Fair.

Public sector unions have long had the practice of supporting, and getting elected, local and state legislator candidates who promise to spend the taxpayer's money for cushy and excessively costly union contracts with ridiculous work rules, lifetime benefits packages and collecting multiple retirement packages - one for each position held, all unheard of in the private sector, which has switched over to defined contribution retirement packages, rather than defined benefits retirement packages.

The elected legislator in question doesn't care what sort of deal is struck, as it's the taxpayer's money not his, nor is the legislator held accountable in the end. The taxpayer's end up being stuck with the bill, and come to realize this, usually, after the legislator has moved on to higher office, such as the federal government. Generally speaking, all other local services are cut to the bone to be able to pay the public sector union and their benefits, while the taxpayer's end up suffering, usually resulting in a down turn in the local economy as those that can move out, and the increased risk of bankruptcy of the local government, at which time, the excessive union contract is open again to re-negotiation. It's all a rather destructive cycle of forced wealth redistribution from middle class taxpayers to public sector union members.
Click to expand...

without that union, my parents might have done something else, which would have been a shame. the community got a great deal, a lot of kids got a great education, and my parents got wages and benefits that were the bare minimum of what they should have received for their labor.
 
NOV 7 - What if Dems fall short?
Click to expand...

Then they will try again during the next election...and the one after that, and so on....its a cycle as old as our Nation.


Political parties in power is a pendulum that swings back and forth from left to right with some regularity.
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea what that has to do with tax impact and rates.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Because you don't want to acknowledge that when you more heavily tax those that have capital, run businesses, and hire people, you hurt employment and productivity, which eventually will have an impact on the nation's GDP.

Just have to witness the torrent of overburdening regulations the Obama's admin unleashed on the private sector, and its impact: GDP was piddling, stagnant, and he claimed this was 'the new normal' (i.e. you shouldn't expect more out of life). :screwy

Didn't take long for that to be proven 100% wrong and 100% wrong headed.
 
Helix said:
without that union, my parents might have done something else, which would have been a shame. the community got a great deal, a lot of kids got a great education, and my parents got wages and benefits that were the bare minimum of what they should have received for their labor.
Click to expand...

OK. Fair enough.

My conclusion would be that some unions behave better than others, i.e. some public sector unions are corrupt, and other are not, and, since it takes at least two to be corrupt, that some state legislators are better than others in this regard.

Still, it doesn't help matters that there are public sector unions that have taken the tax players to cleaners, bankrupted the state and local governments they are supposed to be serving, rather than exploiting with the abuses that I've outlined previously.

Further, I still stand by my earlier post that even FDR struggled for a justification for the existence of public sector unions.
 
eohrnberger said:
OK. Fair enough.

My conclusion would be that some unions behave better than others, i.e. some public sector unions are corrupt, and other are not, and, since it takes at least two to be corrupt, that some state legislators are better than others in this regard.

Still, it doesn't help matters that there are public sector unions that have taken the tax players to cleaners, bankrupted the state and local governments they are supposed to be serving, rather than exploiting with the abuses that I've outlined previously.

Further, I still stand by my earlier post that even FDR struggled for a justification for the existence of public sector unions.
Click to expand...

unions aren't any more perfect than corporations. they are, however, a useful tool for employees. my parents were able to make a decent living as teachers thanks to the union. without that, my dad would have had to keep selling cars, and a lot of kids wouldn't have gotten as good of an education.
 
eohrnberger said:
Of course not. Because you don't want to acknowledge that when you more heavily tax those that have capital, run businesses, and hire people, you hurt employment and productivity, which eventually will have an impact on the nation's GDP.

Just have to witness the torrent of overburdening regulations the Obama's admin unleashed on the private sector, and its impact: GDP was piddling, stagnant, and he claimed this was 'the new normal' (i.e. you shouldn't expect more out of life). :screwy

Didn't take long for that to be proven 100% wrong and 100% wrong headed.
Click to expand...

Your opinion post offered no verifiable proof of any of your claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom