Aneftps replies and statements are largely useless. He tends to make overgeneralizations, or jump from one extreme to the other.
Biden Out of Race
- Thread starter DirtDocMD
- Start date
I don’t watch Fox News. I’m my own person. I don’t follow the masses like you liberals.
People like to stick to their own agenda no matter how wrong they are
Notice me calling rfk and trump idiots. You would never call Biden Harris idiots. Would you?
Because you are stuck in ur own dogma what the world should be. And not what it really is.
I forgot if it was you or some other liberal I always argue with who wants the rich to keep paying higher taxes but than writes they use massive real estate deductions.
Thats the hypocrisy I see in many of the posters on this board.
Depends on what the subject matter is.
I didnt follow Harris senate career. Her economic policy's were widely regarded as better economically than Trumps...and so far..Trumps economic plans have sputtered, as those same experts all predicted.
Overgeneralizations, however, are generally left to the uninformed. Nuance requires knowledge
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,330
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,330
Trump blowing up the JCPOA because it had Obama's name on it should be remembered as one of the most significant foreign policy blunders in modern history and a direct causative factor for escalating the conflict.
Bibi has been saying that they are close to have one since 1995. I guess after 30 yrs, they probably are. 😛
Misleading the Public on democratic polices or overall lying requires knowledge. Something most democratic voters fail to understand.
I thought they were idiots? But they are capable of misleading the public?
Moat voters in general fail to understand. Maga are generally less educated than Dem voters
Idiots falls for the propaganda both Dems and republicans
Can’r you tell I’m not a true republican. I favor higher taxes on everyone. Poor and rich. Clinton was my favorite president. He understood. The poor need to pay a little. The rich need to pay more. It’s so simple.
The bottom 1/3 paid around 10% of federal tax revenue collections under Clinton. Now they pay zero federal taxes. Don’t you have a problem with that? Clinton understands
Now no one wants to change it. In order to advance as a society. We must all feel some pain. And that’s what’s I’ve been saying all along.
Yup. Biden was quite successful at passing his legislative agenda. So far Trump just makes presidential decrees. Not really an effective way to make long term changes...as most get appealed or tied up in court
Biden wasn’t running the country. That’s about as fraud as you can get. I don’t know how you can’t defend the Democratic Party for pulling off the charade for 3.5 years.
As crazy as trump is. He’s making the executive decision.
Trump is testing powers. It gets tied up in court. Some successful. Some unsuccessful. Only time will tell wha the end result will be.
Just like his current appeal in his own criminal conviction that the usa Supreme Court wants to work itself through the Regular appeals courts t.
The Supreme Court of the USA for most appeals of trumps decisions. wants all these executives decisions being made to work itself through the regular court system that trump is making.
"As crazy as trump is. He’s making the executive decision."
That sounds insane. We are supposed to feel good about that.
We get it. You like Trump.
Just as insane as having a dementia president before trump who had others unknownst to the American people making executive decision
I really don’t know what’s worst. Dementia president who has no clue that we beat Medicare. Or a deranged orange mans who makes executive decisions without thinking things through. Both are bad in my opinion.
Thad’s why I’m a cynic of everything that goes on in this message board.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2016
- Messages
- 1,262
- Reaction score
- 2,062
World's dumbest false equivalence. In one scenario, there are highly educated intelligent people in the room having influence. In the other there are replaceable yes-men to enact policies on the fly via tweets.
So be honest. You knew biden had dementia but still would have voted for him. Just be honest.
The reason I troll people here who are so Knuckle headed in supporting any democratic agenda even with a dementia president in Biden. Is the same reason the democrats here keep badgering republicans for supporting the orange man
People are set in their ways and won’t change their opinion.
Everyone has drawn a line in the sand.
People are set in their ways and won’t change their opinion.
Everyone has drawn a line in the sand.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,330
If worsening income inequality is a consequence of capitalism/globalization/"status quo" America; why is it necessary that the poor pay "a little"?
What was income inequality like under Clinton, and what is it now? To whom have most of the income gains gone to over the past 30 years?
Why should we assume that they should pay the same percentage of the total tax pool they were paying in the 90's if they aren't benefiting from America as they once were?
I feel like if you understood just how much income (really wealth) the top 1% has relative to the rest of the country, you wouldn't be making silly comparisons like this.
I think the best arguments for your position are (bizarrely) moral ones. You could be arguing it is Moral and Right that every American contributes to the same common causes. But you're not making those arguments. You're making an argument that we should be squeezing blood from stone. Increasing taxation on the bottom 1/3 of America isn't going to magically solve America's debt issues and such a tax increase would dramatically affect their livelihoods more than a tax increase on other Americans.
Point to me any studies you've read that argue in favor of taxing poorer Americans to fix America's debt.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,330
OK, maybe I missed this in earlier arguments you've made? You are making some sort of moral argument tied to "pain".
You still have to defend this though. A strong argument against this would be: isn't it good to reduce pain and suffering among people? Wouldn't it be a better society if fewer people were feeling pain?
Everyone has to have some skin in the game before we become Greece.
We need 5-6 tax brackets and ZERO write offs (or deductions) regardless of anyone circumstances.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,330
I could be ok with that. But it doesn't necessarily need to be monetary. We could reinvigorate the Civilian Conservation Corps for example or any number of public works projects (or the military). You could work X years, and if you make less than Y dollars you pay Z taxes. Precedent exists for this wrt military tax benefits.
But if we just stuck with the financial case, there is an ocean of difference between requiring the bottom 1/3 of Americans pay 10% of all federal taxes (aneftp's example) and 1% (a more realistic example given increasing income inequality).
We have a shared responsibility to be fiscally responsible. We were talking about budgets and deficits
And I mention Clinton putting the pain both poor and rich people with his tax plans of the mid 1990s.
Remember he ended welfare as we know
But he also increase taxes on the rich to 39.6%. He also collected tax revenue on the bottom 1/3 of the population (10% of all federal tax revenue collected was from the bottom third)
But since he bush tax cuts of 2001 where bush hooked up everyone the poor (40% don’t pay any federal taxes) You forever lost that tax revenue. Even Obama was afraid to touch that subject when he extended the bush tax cuts that were set to expire for almost everyone.
We need to get back to that. Have the bottom continue to pay federal taxes . Have the rich continue to pay more in federal taxes. That’s what I mean by shared responsibility.
It’s called having skin in the game.
European societies does this. Everyone contributes to the system. Rich and poor.
Yet USA can’t figure this out.
European societies have no issues with taxing almost all their citizens
I think you’re mindset is too holistic.
Collecting an extra 2% of the top will generate $200 billion more?
Collecting say $500-750 on average for the bottom 40% will generate 35-50 billion in revenue.
Anything helps.
Who cares. As long as the decisions are sound, reasonable and good for the country, i dont care if the president makes them or not.
Its foolish to think one man can/should make these decisions solo.
I trust the fact that Biden hired extremely experienced individuals to advise him. Trump, on the other hand, has hired wholly unqualified and inexperienced advisors. And given Trump's illogical and wild statements, his dementia is evident as well, without the capable support staff available.
The results are all that matters
You basically answered my question that you would vote a dementia kangaroo into office if he was on the democratic ticket. And ok with anyone running it who’s not elected.
That’s all
My point proven.
We are a divided country that’s all I can say.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,330
Lol. You've completely watered down your goals.
If all you're advocating for is taxing the bottom 40% $500-750 on average (effectively a ~1-2% tax rate) and that achieves your goal of "skin in the game" I could get behind that.
You're abandoning any goal of trying to balance the budget with that level of taxation though and even you have to acknowledge that there isn't much of a difference taxing someone at 2% and taxing them 0%.
The taxation is purely symbolic. Which is fine, because the harm of taxing poor people more becomes mostly symbolic as well.
Last edited:
There is no free ride. It’s participation on everyone’s part
Or we can cut Medicare spending plus defense spending.
There are many ways to put dents in the budget.
No one wants to do anything that’s hurts themselves.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2016
- Messages
- 1,262
- Reaction score
- 2,062
Yeah let's make it more regressive! Tons of data behind that. Not at all feelings-based. Shown to work well for society. Definitely.
How is the European system? The lower end pay. The upper end pay.
Our current system has 40% paying zero federal taxes
The European system is high taxes for thr rich but the the lower end pay government federal taxes as well
Unlike the USA
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2016
- Messages
- 1,262
- Reaction score
- 2,062
Can you name anything else they get for their taxes that we might not be giving to poor people?
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,330
All you're advocating for are symbolic taxes on poor people. Nothing that is going to address broader problems.
No reason to pretend like you're doing different. It's pretty easy to reject your symbolism because it isn't actually solving a problem.
I would actually be ok with your 1-2% tax on those making less than ~$40k, even if it is almost entirely symbolic. If you were advocating for more, I would probably be against it.
The broader problem is our defense and Medicare spending no one wants to tackle. That is the money ball I’ve have discussed time time again
Do we really need to be sending military equipment to Israel? It’s a halo economy. Defense spending. I get it. Too many hands in the cookie jar.
It’s tax and spend. And it takes combination of both. And neither side wants to address both at the same time.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,330
Classic aneftp.
Ignore substantive criticism of your proposed tax plan, and deflect back to "nobody wants to solve" these other problems.
Ignore substantive criticism of your proposed tax plan, and deflect back to "nobody wants to solve" these other problems.
I offer solutions. No one wants to do it. Tax and stop spending. It’s so easy to solve.
It’s not deflection when u offer solutions.
Deflection is not answering a basic question would you vote for dementia Biden. We all know the sneer. And the answer is yes from all the die hard liberals. Not because they are anti trump. They would just vote for any democrat on the ticket.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 2,865
- Reaction score
- 1,847
I’m not sure you know what holistic means.
Not much of a point. Certainly not an interesting one
Proves you are so straight line ideology stuck
It’s a moving world. Adapt or be left behind
I vote for the best ideas and the best plans. Whomever that may be
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2019
- Messages
- 1,427
- Reaction score
- 2,457
I call your lazy link and raise with my ownNo
Taxation in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Tax rates in Europe - Wikipedia
I highly doubt u vote republican.
I mix and match my votes. Im not afraid to vote for different ideologies. Either parties. Because I like divisions.
The goal is to make politicians feel uneasy. Like they aren’t doing a good job
I’m gonna to vote straight anti incumbent (and that means lot of republicans out) to get rid of incumbents in mid terms.
The goal is to force politicians to actually do real work and not get stagnant. Thats why you vote anti incumbent and make them lose their job. If they want their job back. They gotta fight for it again.
The goal for me is to get enough Dems and it won’t take much and get trump impeached for the 3rd time just to get him on alert again.
Obviously he doesn’t care. Until he gets removed from office. That won’t be a bad thing.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2016
- Messages
- 1,262
- Reaction score
- 2,062
I guess I don't consider "one of the most" equal to "29th" or "below the average" for similar nations.
Thats great but not really much of a logical strategy. Especially given that local races may have multiple candidates for the same position
Might as well just be random
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 16,802
- Reaction score
- 26,089
Chaos and pain to teach people a lesson are his calling cards.
But he's not wrong about Medicare, SS, and military spending. No meaningful cuts or reform in sight.
And if we're ever going to address the debt and deficit, more revenue is needed and everyone will need to be taxed at a higher rate.
I don't know if either party will ever do that. The GOP used to be ideologically opposed to tax increases on economic and small government principles (however dubiously adhered to in practice), but now they're much more in "starve the beast" mode, aka "make government fail so we can claim government doesn't work" ... they'd rather see it all burn.
While Democrats would happily tax billionaires, I'm not sure their appetite (or the slim electoral margins that might bring them to power) will tolerate tax increases on the middle and upper working classes, which is where the money is.
As taxes go, a national sales tax / VAT might be a more palatable regressive tax hike for the GOP (if they can EVER again be convinced to raise taxes), and give Democrats cover to pretend it's not a tax on the poor and middle classes.
On a related note, in the end it's just not possible to mesh the left's longer term goal of UBI with any kind of tax-the-poor-a-little-bit-so-they-have-skin-in-the-game reasoning.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,330
That's possible, but as I understand it current formulations of the National Sales Tax (HR 25 for example) pair it with broad cuts to income tax. Predictably neutering federal revenues and "starving the beast" as you suggest, which make it unpalatable for anyone actually interested in governing.
More recent studies on UBI have made me more skeptical of it as a political project than I was 3-4 years ago. I think there are still strong arguments for it, but I am like 60:40 on it now.
Edit:
This was a disappointing read.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 526
Giving people money makes them want to work less doesn’t seem like a surprising finding to me.
Did you expect something different?
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,330
Earlier studies often didn't suggest this problem to be as significant as this larger study has, and the positive aspects associated with greater economic flexibility (entrepreneurial activities, going back to school, etc...) weren't really seen here.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 16,802
- Reaction score
- 26,089
Surprising or not, that has been the finding in trials of UBI so far. Generally they showed that the people who received the money kept working, and/or invested the extra money in school or training that increased their post-trial incomes. All while raising their standard of living at the time.
I think UBI is an interesting thought experiment but doubt we'll ever see it implemented in a widespread manner, unless and until AI/robotics/etc actually do put 1/4 or 1/3 of human beings out of work because they truly are not needed. That's not soon, no matter what the starry-eyed futurists say. Even then I'm going to guess a poverty-stricken dystopia for 1/2 the population is a more likely outcome than a Star Trek universe kind of UBI.
Anecdotally, I can tell you that millions of Americans in their prime working years (40s-50s) currently get UBI - military retirement benefits. Despite that, almost all of them (myself included 🙂) still work full time. The welfare queen myth is, well, a myth.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2012
- Messages
- 4,857
- Reaction score
- 5,913
I was the recipient of UBI in a sense (not quite) through all of med school, as my income was zero and I had a wife and kids, so not only did I pay zero taxes, I received tax credits that mean I got a tax return every year in the thousands of dollars!
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 657
- Reaction score
- 454
The US bombing Iran could lead to another 911. I wish people would think about that. We don't need to give people in the Middle East another reason to hate America.
Iran could also blockade the Straight of Hormuz. It's a choke point though which much of the world's oil supply passes. Americans would feel it back home, when the price of gasoline and natural gas soars.
It could also cause WW III.
